[bylaws-coord] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Human Rights Transition Provision: Bylaws Section 27.3(a)
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue May 3 16:48:39 UTC 2016
Dear Niels
Thank you very much for yr message
May you pls advise why you separate GAC from other chartering organisations ?
Why such discrimination is made?
Do you associate yourself with those who clearly and openly wish to exclude GAC from any and all process?
I am surprised to hear from you differentiating GAC from other chartering organisations
Is GAC a step child compared with other SO/AC?
I just do not understand why GAC should be treated different from other chartering organisations?
Regards
Kavousd
Sent from my iPhone
> On 3 May 2016, at 18:35, Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net> wrote:
>
> Fully agree with Greg.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
>> On 05/03/2016 05:46 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>> Responses inline below.
>>
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Greg, my reference was bullet point 6 of paragraph 28 and not 27.
>>
>> This seems like an attempt to create an aura of misunderstanding where
>> there is none. Paragraph 27 is a graphic with (quite clearly) no bullet
>> points. My reference was a simple typo, nothing more. Hardly worthy of
>> the lead sentence of your reply.
>>
>>
>> I have never written that high standard be applied;
>>
>> You seem to be writing exactly that, repeatedly. Unless, I
>> misunderstand your viewpoint, you contend that the approval of all
>> Chartering Organizations be required. With the Work Stream 1 Proposal,
>> it was sufficient that the Proposal had the approval of the ALAC, ASO,
>> ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC and a non-objection by the GAC. Isn't it your
>> position that this should be insufficient for the FoI? If so, that is
>> unquestionably a higher standard.
>>
>> I have always quoted what the report clearly stated, which is that
>> approval of CO was required for the FoI
>>
>> I disagree that this is what the report clearly states. You are using
>> the parenthetical as your sole support for the claim that the CCWG
>> wanted a heightened level of approval for the FOI. My recollection was
>> that this parenthetical was put in solely to clarify that the FOI does
>> not go directly from the WG to the Board, but rather needs a a review by
>> the COs. I don't think there is any basis for bootstrapping that
>> statement into a heightened standard of review and approval -- but
>> apparently you do.
>>
>> but you seem to counter that with intent and a reference and I have
>> told you was rather referring to board's approval process(bullet6
>> para28). By the way, the phrase "including Chartering Organizations’
>> approval" was repeated 3 times in that report. It's not just a
>> coincidence.
>>
>> Again, that's the parenthetical. I've dealt with that above and
>> before. I've asked you for a clear and unequivocal statement that shows
>> that the CCWG intended to create a unique and higher standard for the
>> Chartering Organization's review of the FOI. You have not provided
>> one. Clearly, this is because such a statement does not exist. Again,
>> given all the time we have spent saying and writing things about levels
>> of review, it is unimaginable that we would create a higher level of
>> review with no explanation or discussion. As such, the idea that the
>> Proposal should be seen as creating such a higher level of review solely
>> for the FOI is unsupportable.
>>
>> They say "iron sharpen iron" as I am not a lawyer, I obviously
>> cannot convince you on this one ;-). At this point, I will rest my
>> case since irrespective of what I say and the references I provide
>> in the report, you counter it with intent and what was said.
>>
>> I've dealt with your references, which are roundly unconvincing. At no
>> point have I relied on "what was said" in the sense of a verbal
>> utterance. As pointed out before, in colloquial English, it's common to
>> write that "a report says" something, when what is meant is that
>> something is written in the report. So again that's an attempt to
>> create an aura of misunderstanding where there is none.
>>
>>
>> I hope my point has been duly noted by the Co-Chairs, irrespective
>> of route we take it should be based on the decision of the group as
>> per the charter. Apologies in advance for the upcoming meeting (will
>> join if I can)
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On 2 May 2016 11:08 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I disagree. Paragraph 6, which was repeated twice more in the
>> Proposal, was not merely a summary of the bylaw language. It
>> stated the _intent_ behind the "bylaw" language. I don't think
>> any of the Proposal is to "taken lightly," and it was not our
>> intent that the "draft bylaw" language have any special place in
>> indicating the intent of the CCWG vs. the rest of the text of
>> the proposal. We also recognized that the CCWG's attempts to
>> draft legally sufficient text were not sufficient, which is why
>> paragraph 23 is introduced by a statement (which you chose not
>> to quote) that the recommendation is to "Include a Bylaw with
>> the following */intent/* in Work Stream 1 recommendations"
>> [emphasis added], which clearly indicates that the text of the
>> "draft bylaw" sections in our proposal was not intended to be
>> adopted verbatim. The Proposal needs to be read as a whole, and
>> it's incorrect to assume that greater weight should be given to
>> language in a "bylaws" section.
>>
>> Nothing you have put forward even touches on whether the review
>> by the Chartering Organizations was going to be done to a unique
>> and higher standard, much less states it "clearly and
>> unequivocally." So, no, there's nothing here that shows that
>> the CCWG wanted to require a higher threshold from the
>> Chartering Organizations than is used for all the rest of the
>> work of the CCWG.
>>
>> Finally, if there was "quite a huge debate during the
>> discussion" on this particular point, show me in the
>> transcripts, recordings or meeting notes. Bullet point 6 of
>> paragraph 27 confirms nothing of the sort -- it just simply
>> parrots the parenthetical. I think we can all agree that there
>> was no debate on this particular point, and that the reference
>> to "Chartering Organizations' approval" was not intended to
>> create a special threshold just for the FOI, and that any
>> contention otherwise is simply a misreading of the CCWG Proposal.
>>
>> I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough.
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Seun Ojedeji
>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I think we can just agree that paragraph 6(which you
>> referenced) poorly summarised paragraph 23, a section of
>> which I quote below :
>>
>> "...This Bylaw provision will not enter into force until (1)
>> a Framework of
>> Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed by the
>> CCWG-Accountability as a
>> consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including
>> Chartering Organizations’ approval)
>> and (2) the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the
>> same process and criteria it has
>> committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations.”
>>
>> OR the summary was indeed referring to the approval process
>> to be used by the board as I think that was quite a huge
>> debate during the discussion and bullet point 6 of paragraph
>> 28 of the report confirms that. Below:
>>
>> "Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how
>> ICANN’s operations are carried out once an FOI-HR is
>> developed by the CCWG-Accountability as a consensus
>> recommendation in Work Stream 2 *(including Chartering
>> Organizations’ approval)* and the *FOI-HR is approved by the
>> ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has
>> committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations*"
>>
>> Pay attention to the sections stared! Again that same bullet
>> point repeated the phrase "(including Chartering
>> Organizations’ approval)". You may also want to note that
>> paragraph 23 was actually a proposed bylaw text and not just
>> one of those texts that can be taken lightly.
>>
>> I hope that is "clear and unequivocal" enough
>>
>> Regards
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On 2 May 2016 9:20 p.m., "Greg Shatan"
>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I am also referring to what we [said/wrote]* in the
>> report, which is the following:
>>
>> "The proposed draft Bylaw also clarifies that no IRP
>> challenges can be made on the grounds of this Bylaw
>> until a Framework of Interpretation on Human Rights
>> (FOI-HR) is developed and approved as part of Work
>> Stream 2 activities. It further clarifies that
>> *acceptance of the **FOI**-HR will require the same
>> process as for Work Stream 1 recommendations* (as agreed
>> for all Work Stream 2 recommendations)."
>>
>> We said ... er sorry .. wrote this *_three_* times in
>> the report, and we need to give this effect. The
>> language in the draft circulated for comment is
>> inconsistent with this statement, to the extent that it
>> appears to require the positive approval of all
>> Chartering Organizations, which would be a
>> _different_ process than the one used for Work Stream 1
>> recommendations. As such, the draft needs to be corrected.
>>
>> I was on the calls and email exchanges when the
>> parenthetical about the chartering organizations was
>> inserted in the "bylaws" language in the Proposal. All
>> that was meant by the insertion was to clarify that the
>> FoI did not go straight from Working Group approval to
>> the Board, but had to be reviewed by the Chartering
>> Organizations first, just as the WS1 recommendations
>> were reviewed. There was never any discussion or intent
>> to imply that a higher standard of approval was needed
>> for the FoI vs. all other CCWG recommendations.
>>
>> If anyone can find a clear and unequivocal statement
>> that shows the CCWG meant to have a heightened standard
>> for the FoI, I'll reconsider my view. However, I'm
>> confident there is no such statement. We spent many,
>> many hours of discussing and drafting sections on levels
>> of approval for the Empowered Community and relating to
>> levels of approval within the GAC. As such, it defies
>> logic to claim that the simple insertion of a
>> parenthetical, without any specific discussion or
>> explanation of a heightened standard, created a
>> requirement for unanimous and/or positive approval.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> ______
>> * You are inventing a dichotomy where there is none. In
>> either case, I was referring to the report, not to some
>> verbal utterance. I'm sorry if my somewhat colloquial
>> use of "said" confused you. It's perfectly acceptable
>> to use "said" to refer to a written document, at least
>> in everyday usage.
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Seun Ojedeji
>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Depends on how you are interpreting the word
>> "bundle"; the WS1 was presented as a single
>> document, while some COs decided to approve/respond
>> recommendation by recommendation, others approved
>> the document as a whole. Perhaps a simple
>> application of the report(if you want to avoid round
>> trips proposed in the report without distorting the
>> intent) will be to highlight FoI as a single
>> recommendation in WS2 which gives the COs the option
>> to approve/reject it out rightly and then the CCWG
>> can determine what to do with the FoI based on the
>> outcome of the COs approval process.
>>
>> On your second point, at this juncture I am not
>> talking about what we said but rather about what we
>> WROTE in the report, which is what anyone who have
>> not followed the process would rely upon. So do you
>> want to reflect "what we said" or "what we wrote"
>> either of them is fine by me but we should be clear
>> on the path we have chosen, knowing it's
>> implications as well.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On 2 May 2016 3:51 p.m., "Greg Shatan"
>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> At no point did we say that the FoI would be
>> bundled with other WS2 recommendations as a
>> complete package. Indeed, we've never said that
>> any of the WS2 projects had to be bundled with
>> others.
>>
>> At no point did we say that there would be a
>> special process for approving the FoI. It
>> should be the same as WS1, which contemplates a
>> review by the Chartering Organizations, and then
>> allows the CCWG to forward recommendation to the
>> Board even if less than all of the COs approve
>> of the recommendation.
>>
>> As long as we can find ways to reflect that
>> clearly, we will be carrying out the intent of
>> the Proposal.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji
>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Thomas,
>>
>> If I process this correctly, it implies
>> approval of the FoI will be done based on
>> ratification process in the CCWG charter,
>> which is different from approval of the
>> whole WS2 package as per the charter.
>>
>> If that is it, then I will say it's somewhat
>> closer to what was proposed in the report
>> (even though the report did not mention that
>> CO ratification of FoI is based on the charter).
>>
>> Regards
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On 2 May 2016 3:24 p.m., "Thomas Rickert"
>> <thomas at rickert.net
>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> Tijani has proposed a solution at the
>> end of his latest e-mail:
>>
>> I understand that the first proposal
>> made the approval of all the chartering
>> organizations necessary, The
>> modification should keep the reference
>> to the ratification of the chartering
>> organizations and add "as defined in the
>> CCWG charter“.
>>
>> Would that be a way forward?
>>
>> Best,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>>> Am 02.05.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Seun
>>> Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>:
>>>
>>> Hello Niels,
>>>
>>> I think we may just be playing around
>>> with words here, definitely you
>>> understand Tijani's concern ;-). Let
>>> me attempt to spell out(even though I
>>> have done this before) my
>>> understanding of the report which I
>>> must say is obvious:
>>>
>>> 1. The report clearly used the phrase
>>> "...*including* approval of chartering
>>> organisations"
>>>
>>> 2. Equating that to mean that it's
>>> equivalent to the CO approval within
>>> CCWG may be out of order because as
>>> per the charter irrespective of number
>>> of support from CO, the package goes
>>> to board for approval.
>>>
>>> 3. The intent of item 2 above is not
>>> the same thing as item 1; What I
>>> understand is that the FoI as a
>>> critical document it is needs to be
>>> developed during WS2, approved by the
>>> CO and incoporated into the WS2
>>> proposal which is then sent to COs for
>>> approval as a complete package.
>>>
>>> That said, i will again say that if
>>> the goal is to reflect what was
>>> written in the report then we are out
>>> of order. However we may just agree
>>> that what we have done is correcting a
>>> *mistake* in the report through the
>>> bylaw. In that case, we should present
>>> it as such and not on claims that the
>>> report did not say approval of CO is
>>> required.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Sent from my LG G4
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>>
>>> On 2 May 2016 9:40 a.m., "Niels ten
>>> Oever" <lists at nielstenoever.net
>>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Tijani,
>>>
>>> But the chartering organizations
>>> are mentioned in the charter of the
>>> CCWG, so am not sure if I
>>> understand your concern.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>> On 05/02/2016 10:22 AM, Tijani BEN
>>> JEMAA wrote:
>>>> Hi Niels,
>>>>
>>>> The last modification of the
>>> bylaws proposed by the lawyers
>>> didn’t make
>>>> any reference to the chartering
>>> organizations approval while it is
>>>> clearly mentioned in the CCWG
>>> last proposal ratified by the
>>> chartering
>>>> organizations.
>>>>
>>>> Have a nice day
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>>>> Executive Director
>>>> Mediterranean Federation of
>>> Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>>>> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>>> <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>
>>>> +216 52 385 114
>>> <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Le 2 mai 2016 à 09:11, Niels
>>> ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net
>>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>
>>>>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net
>>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>>
>>> a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Tijani and Kavouss,
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you please indicate where
>>> the proposed text is not
>>> consistent with
>>>>> the report? Concrete references
>>> would be helpful for me to better
>>>>> understand your point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>
>>>>> Niels
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/02/2016 09:38 AM, Kavouss
>>> Arasteh wrote:
>>>>>> Tijani +1
>>>>>> I fully agree with Tijani
>>>>>> People misuse the opportunity
>>> to make modifications that were
>>> not agreed
>>>>>> during the lkast 16 months
>>>>>> NO CHANGE NO MODIFICATIONS.
>>>>>> During the WSIS I WILL tell
>>> everybody that there is no
>>> supervision nor
>>>>>> control on what we have agreed
>>> and the people will make whatever
>>> change
>>>>>> they wish without the
>>> agreements of the others
>>>>>>
>>>>>> KAVOUSS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2016-05-02 8:14 GMT+02:00
>>> Tijani BEN JEMAA
>>> <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>>
>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>>>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mathieu and all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The modification proposed
>>> doesn’t reflect the CCWG last proposal
>>>>>> approved by the chartering
>>> organization. I don’t think we are
>>>>>> allowed to write bylaws
>>> that are not the exact
>>> interpretation of the
>>>>>> approved document that had
>>> the CCWG consensus and the charting
>>>>>> organizations ratification.
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>>>>>> Executive Director
>>>>>> Mediterranean Federation of
>>> Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>>>>>> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>>> <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>
>>>>>> +216 52 385 114
>>> <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 2 mai 2016 à 04:23,
>>> Kavouss Arasteh
>>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>>
>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mathieu,
>>>>>>> Tks
>>>>>>> Pls NOTE MY SERIOUS
>>> OBJECTIONS to:
>>>>>>> 1.NOT MENTIONING REFERNCE
>>> TO THE APPROVAL OF CHARTERING
>>>>>>> ORGANIZATIONBS in HR
>>>>>>> 2. GIVE GIVE A BLANKET
>>> AGREEMENT TO THE DOCUMENTS WHICH
>>> YET TO BE
>>>>>>> DRAFTED.
>>>>>>> 3. Making so many changes
>>> to the Third proposals . We must avoid
>>>>>>> having a new proposal
>>>>>>> Kavouss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2016-05-01 22:42 GMT+02:00
>>> Mathieu Weill
>>> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please find below for
>>> your consideration some
>>> suggestions from
>>>>>>> our lawyers for
>>> clarification of the bylaw
>>> language regarding
>>>>>>> the Human rights FoI.
>>> This follows our request during the
>>>>>>> previous call.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mathieu Weill
>>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>>> Depuis mon mobile,
>>> désolé pour le style
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Début du message
>>> transféré :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Expéditeur:*
>>> "Gregory, Holly"
>>> <holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>>
>>>>>>>> *Date:* 1 mai 2016
>>> 19:10:53 UTC+2
>>>>>>>> *Destinataire:*
>>> "'Mathieu Weill'"
>>> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>>,
>>> "'Thomas Rickert'"
>>>>>>>> <thomas at rickert.net
>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net
>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>
>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net
>>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>>,
>>> León Felipe
>>>>>>>> Sánchez Ambía
>>> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>
>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>>,
>>> "bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>"
>>> <bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org
>>> <mailto:bylaws-coord at icann.org>>>
>>>>>>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff
>>> <acct-staff at icann.org
>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org
>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>
>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org
>>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>>,
>>> "Rosemary E. Fei"
>>>>>>>> <rfei at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>>
>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>>>,
>>> "ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>"
>>> <ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>>,
>>>>>>>> Sidley ICANN CCWG
>>> <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>
>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>
>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>>,
>>> "Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>"
>>> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>>
>>>>>>>> *Objet:* *Human
>>> Rights Transition Provision:
>>> Bylaws Section
>>>>>>>> 27.3(a)*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Co-Chairs and
>>> Bylaws Coordinating Group:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the CCWG call last
>>> week, there was a discussion of the
>>>>>>>> Bylaws language
>>> regarding the transition provision
>>> on Human
>>>>>>>> Rights*//*[27.3(a)]
>>> and it was suggested that the
>>> language be
>>>>>>>> clarified to ensure
>>> that the same approval process
>>> used for
>>>>>>>> Work Stream 1 would
>>> apply. We propose the following
>>>>>>>> clarifying edits. We
>>> suggest that you share this with the
>>>>>>>> CCWG and if there is
>>> agreement, the following proposed edit
>>>>>>>> should be included in
>>> the CCWG’s public comment:____
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Redline:____
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN
>>> RIGHTS____*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (a) The Core Value
>>> set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii)
>>> shall
>>>>>>>> have no force or
>>> effect unless and until a framework of
>>>>>>>> interpretation for
>>> human rights (“*FOI-HR*”) is
>>> approved by
>>>>>>>> (i) approved for
>>> submission to the Board by the
>>>>>>>> CCWG-Accountability
>>> as a consensus recommendation in Work
>>>>>>>> Stream 2, and (ii)
>>> approved by each of the
>>>>>>>> CCWG-Accountability’s
>>> chartering organizations and (iii) the
>>>>>>>> Board, (in each
>>> thecase of the Board, using the
>>> same process
>>>>>>>> and criteria used by
>>> the Boardto consider the as for Work
>>>>>>>> Stream 1
>>> Recommendations).____
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (b) No person or
>>> entity shall be entitled to invoke the
>>>>>>>> reconsideration
>>> process provided in Section 4.2,
>>> or the
>>>>>>>> independent review
>>> process provided in Section 4.3, based
>>>>>>>> solely on the
>>> inclusion of the Core Value set
>>> forth in
>>>>>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii)
>>> (i) until after the FOI-HR
>>> contemplated
>>>>>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is
>>> in place or (ii) for actions of ICANN
>>>>>>>> or the Board that
>>> occurred prior to the____
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> effectiveness of the
>>> FOI-HR.____
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clean:____
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Section 27.3. HUMAN
>>> RIGHTS____*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (a) The Core Value
>>> set forth in Section 1.2(b)(viii)
>>> shall
>>>>>>>> have no force or
>>> effect unless and until a framework of
>>>>>>>> interpretation for
>>> human rights (“*FOI-HR*”) is (i)
>>> approved
>>>>>>>> for submission to the
>>> Board by the CCWG-Accountability as a
>>>>>>>> consensus
>>> recommendation in Work Stream 2
>>> and (ii) approved
>>>>>>>> by the Board, in each
>>> case, using the same process and
>>>>>>>> criteria as for Work
>>> Stream 1 Recommendations.____
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (b) No person or
>>> entity shall be entitled to invoke the
>>>>>>>> reconsideration
>>> process provided in Section 4.2,
>>> or the
>>>>>>>> independent review
>>> process provided in Section 4.3, based
>>>>>>>> solely on the
>>> inclusion of the Core Value set
>>> forth in
>>>>>>>> Section 1.2(b)(viii)
>>> (i) until after the FOI-HR
>>> contemplated
>>>>>>>> by Section 27.3(a) is
>>> in place or (ii) for actions of ICANN
>>>>>>>> or the Board that
>>> occurred prior to the____
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> effectiveness of the
>>> FOI-HR.____
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kind regards, ____
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Holly and Rosemary____
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __ __
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *HOLLY* *J. GREGORY*
>>>>>>>> Partner and Co-Chair
>>>>>>>> Corporate Governance
>>> & Executive Compensation Practice
>>> Group____
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Sidley Austin LLP*
>>>>>>>> 787 Seventh Avenue
>>>>>>>> New York, NY 10019
>>>>>>>> +1 212 839 5853
>>> <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853>
>>> holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>>>>>>>> www.sidley.com
>>> <http://www.sidley.com/>
>>>>>>>> <http://www.sidley.com/>
>>> <http://www.sidley.com/>____
>>> http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png
>>> <http://www.sidley.com/> *SIDLEY
>>> AUSTIN LLP*____
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __ __
>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>>>>>>> This e-mail is sent
>>> by a law firm and may contain
>>> information
>>>>>>>> that is privileged or
>>> confidential.
>>>>>>>> If you are not the
>>> intended recipient, please delete the
>>>>>>>> e-mail and any
>>> attachments and notify us
>>>>>>>> immediately.
>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community
>>> mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community
>>> mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community
>>> mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Niels ten Oever
>>>>> Head of Digital
>>>>>
>>>>> Article 19
>>>>> www.article19.org
>>> <http://www.article19.org/>
>>> <http://www.article19.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567
>>> BEE4 A431 56C4
>>>>> 678B 08B5
>>> A0F2 636D 68E9
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community
>>> mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>> --
>>> Niels ten Oever
>>> Head of Digital
>>>
>>> Article 19
>>> www.article19.org
>>> <http://www.article19.org/>
>>>
>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4
>>> A431 56C4
>>> 678B 08B5 A0F2
>>> 636D 68E9
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community
>>> mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing
>>> list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
>
> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
More information about the bylaws-coord
mailing list