[council] Motion to adopt the CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report

Wed Dec 14 06:28:23 UTC 2022

Hi Anne,

Thank you for the questions! My responses will be in-lined below:

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:13 AM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lewisroca.com>
wrote:

> Hi Manju,
>
> Thank you so much for stepping up to lead this CCOICI effort!
>
>
>
> *Reflecting on this CCOICI Motion and responses received from Marika and
> Ariel, I have the following questions for consideration:*
>
>
>
>    1. Is some action for staff required by the Motion in relation to the
>    SO/AC Accountability requirements set forth in Chapter 7 of the GNSO
>    Operating Procedures?  If so, will that action also take into account any
>    final version of the Terms of Reference for the SO/AC Accountability
>    provisions of the Pilot Holistic Review?  Or are we saying the current
>    version of Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating Procedures is solid and we are
>    sticking with that?  How is this affected by the Motion?  Or is there no
>    effect?  (Sorry but it’s unclear to me where we are going on this and what
>    ICANN staff is supposed to do.)
>
>
The Chapter 7 dictates the operating principles and participation guidance
of Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies within the GNSO.

In CCOICI, we only review the WS2 recommendations in the sense that whether
it applies to Council, we don't review it on behalf of other SO/Cs.

As a result, this recommendation report only deals with what we consider
concerns and is within the GNSO Council's remit. So in a sense, we're not
saying that "the current version of Chapter 7 of the GNSO Operating
Procedures is solid and we are sticking with that". Because we didn't
review chapter 7 of GNSO Operating Procedure. Because reviewing chapter 7,
which is about each SG/Cs and not Council, is not CCOICI's job.

In short, chapter 7 would not be affected by the Motion because the Motion
concerns only the GNSO Council and not SG/Cs within the GNSO.

>
>

>    1. Regarding the Human Rights Core Value, could you (or staff) shed
>    more light on the ICANN staff obligations to be confirmed by the Motion
>    with respect to the following:
>
>
>
> *“**In relation to 3 (Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights), the
> GNSO Council directs GNSO Staff Support to work on a proposed
> implementation of the recommendations, consulting relevant community
> experts as needed. This proposed implementation is to be reviewed by the
> GNSO Council before implementation”*
>
>    1. What is meant by “consulting relevant community experts as needed”
>    and how will staff know how to identify “community experts” for
>    consultation purposes?  Will the consultations be the subject of RFPs that
>    go out to experts?  Will that be a public process?
>
>
There's a Human Right Cross Community Working Group within ICANN, and GAC
also has its own Human rights and International Law Working Group, which
works closely with the CCWG - HR. These are 2 of the examples we had in
mind for 'relevant community experts.' I don't think the CCOICI envisioned
officially outsourcing this via RFPs.

>
>    1. In the CCOICI Report to be adopted via the Motion, staff is
>    directed to implement this Core Value in a way that requires ICANN to take
>    into account impact on Human Rights in its policy-making processes.  Does
>    adoption of this Motion and the report mean that Council is directing staff
>    to amend the Charter for Working Groups to include a provision requiring
>    the WG to take into account any Human Rights implications?  Or are we
>    saying the WG must take in to account all Core Values and perform the
>    “balancing act” stated in the Annex 3 Human Rights Core Value Framework?
>    (Just asking as a former member of the Human Rights SubGroup in the WS2
>    Accountability Workstream.)
>
> My understanding is that the CCOICI recommends going through a simple
checklist prior to chartering the WG. Once the Council finished answering
the questions from the checklist, they'll know whether the WG poses HR
impacts or has HR implications. If the answer is yes, the Council should
include provisions in the WG charter, requiring the WG to take into account
the potential HR impacts.

>
>
>    1. It appears that adoption of the CCOICI Report via this Motion will
>    require the GNSO Council to  add a section on Human Rights Impact to its
>    Annual Report and that this will be another requirement for implementation
>    by staff.  Do Councilors and staff agree that passing this Motion to adopt
>    the Report will mandate that requirement?
>
> I'm sorry, I'm probably being blind or forgetful, but I don't remember
this recommendation you're referring to. I don't think we're even
recommending the Council has an Annual Report.  Please enlighten me on what
I miss.

Again, thank you for the great questions!
I'm sure Marika and Arial will jump in anytime to correct any errors in my
response.

Best,
Manju

>    1.
>
>
>
> *It would be great if the minutes of the Council meeting during the
> passing of this Motion could clarify the implementation requirements for
> staff in relation to the above items. *
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> AAikman at lewisroca.com
>
> D. 520.629.4428
>
>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *??? Manju
> Chen via council
> *Sent:* Monday, December 5, 2022 2:17 AM
> *To:* council at gnso icann. org <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject:* [council] Motion to adopt the CCOICI WS2 Recommendations Report
>
>
>
> *[EXTERNAL]*
> ------------------------------
>
> Dear Council Members,
>
>
>
> Please find attached the motion to adopt the Council Committee for
> Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) WS2
> Recommendations Report.
>
>
>
> This will be added to the agenda for our December Council meeting.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Manju
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20221214/ac8f6b97/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20221214/ac8f6b97/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2031 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20221214/ac8f6b97/image002-0001.png>