[cc-humanrights] Session descriptions and Marakesh Update

Tatiana Tropina tatiana.tropina at gmail.com
Fri Jan 8 12:32:57 UTC 2016


Thanks for the clarification, Niels.
Well, if we can constructive work with the board without sacrifising our
position for having a bylaw and a framework at the CCWG - I am more than
keen to participate in this dialogue. I was questioning the alternative
proposal because I am confident that the lawyers will not find any
additional risks in proposed bylaw language, so I am fully confident that a
bylaw and a framework is the highest priority.
However, you are right - it doesn't exclude the possibility that the board
makes this statement, as it is proposed in the comments :) I also hope that
the way of working on this would be more inclusive than it is outlined in
the comments to the CCWG proposal.
Cheers
Tanya

On 8 January 2016 at 12:47, Niels ten Oever <niels at article19.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi Tatiana,
>
> Just to make it clear: I would not accept such an exchange :)
>
> Let's see how it spins out. First we'll have the legal analysis of the
> board comment in the CCWG. I expect the lawyers to conclude that there
> are no increased risks because of the commitments, which will void the
> board comments.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Niels
>
>
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
>
> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>                    678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>
> On 01/08/2016 12:41 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> > Niels, I would like to take your optimistic position but I am not
> > sure I can keep the same faith in this process. Trying to explain
> > what I mean again: you are citing the board's comments to CCWG
> > proposal. The proposal of the board in the comments is the
> > alternative way they propose to bring forward *instead* of a bylaw
> > commitment (suggested by CCWG). It's not an obligation of the
> > board, this is a mere suggestion that we are free to accept in
> > *exchange* to the bylaw language. So I am not excited, really. I
> > think the board proposed this is an alternative way and as an
> > exchange to the CCWG proposal. It doesn't look to me like any
> > suggestion/commitment to do the parallel processes. I find the
> > proposed way non-inclusive, top-down and non-transparent. uf we
> > follow the way the board proposed, we can get another example of
> > WHOIS review (you quoted only one part of the comments, why not
> > quote their further suggestion that clearly point that all they
> > suggest is statement and review? :)) And comments to the CCG
> > proposal are not commitments anyway. Just comments. Cheers Tanya
> >
> > On 8 January 2016 at 12:32, Niels ten Oever <niels at article19.org
> > <mailto:niels at article19.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I agree with Matthew. But I have a bit different interpretation
> > from Tatiana of the board comment. Because it seems like the board
> > states it will go ahead with a proposal for work on human rights at
> > any rate because they have committed themselves to that for
> > Marakesh. I am curious what they will come up with and then we can
> > develop our opinion, because for me it's quite unclear what they
> > will propose and how it will be developed.
> >
> > At the same time I trust we will all be working hard in the CCWG
> > to have a human rights commitment in the bylaw. I think we need a
> > commitment in the bylaw, a human rights statement, a standard for
> > human rights impact assessment and a human rights policy, so I
> > don't think these processes are mutually exclusive.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Niels
> >
> > 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
> >
> > On 01/08/2016 12:15 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> >> +1 to Matthew The statement of the board contradicts itself:
> >> they are going to work with the community but at the same time
> >> the way they suggest to work has no community engagement
> >> whatsoever. What is more important, the quotation cited from the
> >> board comment is their suggestion of the alternative way to what
> >> we came up with in CCWG. So I do not quite get the idea: are we
> >> going the way the board suggested in the public comments to CCWG
> >> 3rd Draft proposal? Or am I missing something? I thought we'd
> >> rather prefer the way that was suggested in CCWG report and not
> >> the actions proposed by the board. (And I don't think we can have
> >> both). Cheers Tanya
> >
> >> On 8 January 2016 at 12:10, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org
> >> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org
> >> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Niels - see inline
> >
> >> On 08/01/2016 11:02, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >
> >> Hereby our session description for our session requests for
> >> Marakesh. With the GAC Human Rights and International Law
> >> Working Group we agreed we would request for a joint meeting on
> >> Tuesday at 18:00.
> >
> >> It's seems to going to be a very interesting meeting in Marakesh
> >> since the board will also inform us on their plans to develop a
> >> Human Rights Statement with the community (as detailed in their
> >> comment to CCWG Accountability Draft Report 3) [0]
> >
> >
> >>> Not really sure I understand the logic of the Board's plan to
> >>> go off and develop a Human Rights Statement if that is indeed
> >>> their plan. Surely it would be more productive to work on such
> >>> a statement (if it is needed and that has yet to be
> >>> determined) together with the community....
> >
> >
> >
> >> And the CCWG on Accountability will also hold a pre-meeting on
> >> the preceding Friday.
> >
> >> Best,
> >
> >> Niels
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> [0] . The Board will work with the community to develop a Human
> >> Rights  Statement (a practice inspired by the Ruggie
> >> Principles), including       by engaging an expert to assist in
> >> the development. ICANN will      report  to the  community at the
> >> ICANN 55 Marrakesh meeting on      the status      of work and
> >> timelines for community input and review. (from:
> >> https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-prop
> o
> >
> >>
> sa
> >
> >
> > l-30nov15/pdfqWpXzRecih.pdf
> >> )
> >
> >
> >> ___________________
> >
> >> Session Title: ICANN and Human Rights
> >
> >> Type of Meeting: Open Meeting
> >
> >> Session Overview: ICANNs impact on human rights and a possible
> >> commitment to respect human rights has become a topic of
> >> discussion in different parts of the community. This sessions
> >> will provide an overview of human rights relating issues that are
> >> currently being discussed in ICANN, present the work done in the
> >> framework of the cross community working party on ICANN's
> >> Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights, and
> >> provide an overview of issues and principles on Intermediary
> >> Liability.
> >
> >> This session builds on the sessions held in London, Los Angeles,
> >> Singapore, Buenos Aires and Dublin on this issue as well as the
> >> previous reports that were produced on this topic which can be
> >> found here: http://icannhumanrights.net
> >
> >> Agenda: A detailed agenda will be provided closer to the meeting
> >> date.
> >
> >> Preferred Date, Time and Length of Meeting: Monday March 7 13:45
> >> - 15:00 or Wednesday March 9 15:45 - 17:00
> >
> >> Preferred Room Set-up: We would prefer a “U” shape table to
> >> allow for productive and interactive dialogue among participants
> >
> >> Meeting Overview: There will be no breaks
> >
> >> Estimated Number of Attendees: 50 – 60 attendees, based on the
> >> number of people at the meeting in Dublin
> >
> >> Remote Presenters and Participation: No remote presenters are
> >> anticipated. However, there would be remote participants
> >
> >> Audio Visual Requirements The following audio/visual needs are
> >> requested: Table microphones will need to be spaced on the
> >> tables for every 2-3 seats; Two wireless hand microphones and
> >> one microphone stand (microphone in microphone stand for
> >> questions from attendees, and tow hand held microphone to
> >> circulate if needed); Dedicated laptop computer to manage Adobe
> >> Connect and all presentations;
> >
> >> Adobe Connect with audio; Teleconference bridge for remote
> >> participates with toll-free dial in capability; Recording and
> >> transcript of the session.
> >
> >> Fixed Breaks There will be no breaks.
> >
> >
> >> _________________________
> >
> >
> >> Working Session of CCWP on ICANN's Corporate and Social
> >> Responsibility to Respect Human Rights
> >
> >> Session Title: CCWP on ICANN's Corporate & Social Responsibility
> >> to Respect Human Rights Working Session
> >
> >> Type of Meeting: Open Meeting
> >
> >> Session Overview: Working session of Cross Community Working
> >> Party on ICANN's Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect
> >> Human Rights
> >
> >> This cross community working party (CCWP) seeks to map and
> >> understand the issues and potential solutions related to
> >> corporate and social responsibilities of the Internet Corporation
> >> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). This is related, but not
> >> limited to policies, procedures and operations, with a
> >> particular focus on ICANNs responsibility to respect human
> >> rights.
> >
> >> The objective of this session will be to facilitate dialogue
> >> between members of the community that have an interest in this
> >> topic. We will discuss in depth the research that has been done,
> >> the relevant issues at hand in the ICANN community convening
> >> human rights, and define the next steps for the CCWP.
> >
> >> Agenda A detailed agenda will be provided closer to the meeting
> >> date.
> >
> >> Preferred Date, Time and Length of Meeting We would like to
> >> request a 1 hour block of time on Wednesday, 09 March 2016, 1700
> >> – 1800, Morocco time.
> >
> >> Preferred Room Set-up: We would prefer a “U” shape table to
> >> allow for productive and interactive dialogue among the members.
> >
> >> Meeting Overview: There will be no breaks.
> >
> >> Estimated Number of Attendees: 30 – 40 attendees, based on the
> >> number of people at the meeting in Dublin
> >
> >> Remote Presenters and Participation: No remote presenters are
> >> anticipated. However, there would be remote participants
> >
> >> Audio Visual Requirements: The following audio/visual needs are
> >> requested:
> >
> >> Table microphones will need to be spaced on the tables for every
> >> 2-3 seats; Two wireless hand microphones and one microphone
> >> stand (microphone in microphone stand for questions from
> >> attendees, and tow hand held microphone to circulate if needed);
> >> Dedicated laptop computer to manage Adobe Connect and all
> >> presentations;
> >
> >> Adobe Connect with audio; Teleconference bridge for remote
> >> participates with toll-free dial in capability; Recording and
> >> transcript of the session.
> >
> >> Fixed Breaks There will be no breaks.
> >
> >> -- 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 _______________________________________________
> >> cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights at icann.org
> > <mailto:cc-humanrights at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:cc-humanrights at icann.org
> >> <mailto:cc-humanrights at icann.org>>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
> >
> >
> >> --
> >
> >> Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human
> >> Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears at cdt.org
> >> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org
> >> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> + 44 771 247
> > 2987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%20247%202987>
> >> <tel:%2B%2044%20771%20247%202987>
> >
> >
> >> --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
> >> software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> >
> >> _______________________________________________ cc-humanrights
> >> mailing list cc-humanrights at icann.org
> >> <mailto:cc-humanrights at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:cc-humanrights at icann.org
> >> <mailto:cc-humanrights at icann.org>>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
> >
> >
> >
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWj6HSAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpEVYIAIH+TdhHG7Bf8KMO56ijSBl1
> e1L6ERzo1dUZ0RIY3leRNQ4qoL6lUOquMTZpv3YZ3IJx3fuq0FZ6DWxDyL46K07Q
> 5BZAZ94AAMPySMsN6gddbcUX799HEn8Rp8eX9C6FWQBmEE0sqVSqd7dj6gcziC6Q
> LYy6twpx2uUBMTgkYVe926oFGDYSFIRQk+kR+1nF2Yls9lGX3jWpSeRvbcy5yHC6
> qZAiYn5uZWd8DrvVm5AbQg6ezb2I7nM4emgeLgd+VaMDkbXh/tscvU/vx5x0shLE
> tXrMJ2PTcW00NSn8RWIZj+xXlnTOFU6K2L3U9p/nc4KKeZFgtrLZ7H2TrVXQ+/k=
> =Da6A
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cc-humanrights/attachments/20160108/b0a75384/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the cc-humanrights mailing list