[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Recommendation 6 - Human Rights
nigel at channelisles.net
Thu Feb 4 08:32:35 UTC 2016
We aren't that far apart.
I agree with your proposed courses of action in order to onboard a Human
Rights dimension to ICANN.
It's the current wording that is wrong.
What I most disagree with is the self-serving drafting that makes it
SOUND like we are saying "human rights are part of our core values"
which when construed legally actually, and clearly says "human rights
are NOT part of our core values".
On 04/02/16 08:16, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> Hello Nigel,
>>> It sounds nice, and means nothing in terms of committing ICANN to do anything but follow California law, which it is obliged to do anyway.
> Well I hope it is a step forward to note that human rights are part of our core values. Applicable law could also apply to other locations where ICANN operates - e.g. we have offices and staff that work on multiple locations around the world. We need to obey the laws that relate to those staff in each country for example - e.g. anti-slavery and anti-discrimination laws.
>>> Why is the ICANN Board scared of agreeing to respect the rights in the UDHR?? It should be proud to set an example to other multistakeholder and private sector organisations.
> I think we should focus on actually identifying how to interpret all the various concepts around human rights and create our own framework of interpretation that is relevant to us. That is the aim of work stream 2 . For example I don't know anything about UDHR. I would rather we have a page of text that explains exactly what ICANN is on the hook for beyond applicable law. We may well look at getting an expert that advises non-government organizations on how best to respect human rights in their operations that can help with the work stream 2 work.
> Bruce Tonkin
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community