[CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Jul 30 06:19:36 UTC 2015

Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-07-30 2:10, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> Quite a option you offer.
> I think that there is another way to look at a minority report.  There
> is a lot in the report that is good.  What I need to decide is whether
> the inability and unwillingness to commit ourselves to human rights is a
> fatal flaw in an otherwise good report.
> The choice I need to make is whether I trust ICANN to adhere to human
> rights considerations without NTIA oversight.  We can quibble about the
> degree to which their obligations as a right duty bearer apply to ICANN
> because of our contract. Sidley has explained that there are:
>> As a general matter, in the absence of its federal contract, ICANN’s
>> obligations for human rights will remain generally consistent although
>> there will be some variation in particulars.
> So the the issue on the law depends on the extent of the variations.
> They may or may not end up being significant. Perhaps this needs to be
> studied and understood before we move further.
> The current report text states:
>> All participants in these discussions agreed that ICANN should respect
>> fundamental human rights in all of its operations
> I find this hard to accept given we are not willing to put any mention
> of Human rights in the core values part of it bylaws.  Not even a simple
> statement like:
>      ICANN will be committed to respect fundamental human rights in its
>      operations.
> Or even a constrained statement like:
>      Within its mission, ICANN will be committed to respect fundamental
>      human rights in its operationsespecially with regard to the exercise
>      of free expression or the free flow of information.
> The unwillingness to make such straight forward commitments, which are
> being denied by a stated need to study the issue is something I do not
> understand.  If we are committed to respect for fundamental human
> rights, then lets say so!  We can work out the details in WS2, but the
> unwillingness of the majority, especially the commercial majority, to so
> committ is a warning bell.
> What I have no doubt about in that in the current situation is that if
> we were to start to stray into human rights infractions in terms of
> freedom  of expression and other curtailments of speech, discriminatory
> behaviors, curtailment of the freedom of assembly and association &c.
> NTIA in its current role would do something to help us find a better
> path.  I also have little doubt that if NTIA or the US Congress were to
> focus on our inability to commit to basic freedoms in our bylaws they
> would have a harder time accepting our solutions for WS1.  I wonder,
> given that we have had this discussion, whether the congress will ask us
> about our commitment to basic freedoms in a future hearing.  I wonder
> what kind of answer our spokespesons will give?
> Without NTIA as the backstop and with ICANN's primary profit motives, I
> am not so sure anything could stop us without a bylaws commitment to
> honoring human rights.  Money would win out, it almost always does at
> ICANN.  Even now we are discussing discrimination within the
> organization because, e.g. the SOs bring in the money they should have
> more say.  How can we be assured that in a future without an NTIA
> backstop ICANN would not turn into an even more commercially controlled
> organization?  I absolutely believe we need a committment to human
> rights in our bylaws to preserve ourselves as a just institution.
> If this deficiency a fatal flaw in the recommendation?  If we really do
> need more study, would it be better to delay longer while we study this
> for WS1 inclusion? It might just be.  We do have 4 more years of
> possible contract extension.
> thanks
> avri
> On 29-Jul-15 16:57, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>> All,
>> as you will remember, we have discussed our suggested way forward and
>> the question of minority statements in our call yesterday.
>> Nonetheless, we would like to offer some more information on this.
>> We would like to present to the community not only a draft report, but
>> a consensus proposal. We do hope to have reached consensus on all
>> questions so there will be no need for an additional determination of
>> consensus after the public comment period unless the community input
>> requires us to revisit substantial parts of our proposal.
>> 1. We suggest you file a minority statement if you object to the
>> overall set of recommendations. The minority statement will be
>> referred to in an appendix to the report.
>> 2. We suggest you provide us with your dissenting opinion to
>> individual questions so that we can include it in the body of the
>> report. We already heard from individuals that they appreciate this
>> option as they do not wish their objection to an individual aspect of
>> the report to be perceived as opposition to the overall approach we
>> are taking. If you consider using this option, please use the
>> following format to help add value to the proposal:
>> i. raise your concern
>> ii. provide a rationale for your concern
>> iii. please offer an alternative suggestion
>> In order for your statements (both minority statements and dissenting
>> opinions on individual questions) to be published at the same time as
>> the report will be published, they need to be received by rapporteurs,
>> co-chairs or staff by 12.00 UTC on the 31st of July.
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas
>> PS: In case we do not reach consensus but can only present a draft,
>> the situation is not different from the first report and we will not
>> have minority statements for such report. According to our charter,
>> minority statements offer a chance to oppose to a consensus. In the
>> absence of consensus, there is no need for minority statements. Please
>> note that in this case, we will still allow for minority statement to
>> be added to our final report.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list