[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mission statement and human rights
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Thu Jan 28 17:59:21 UTC 2016
MAYBE, just maybe, we can put this to bed.
Can you construe (deconstruct) the latest language for me, the way you
see it, please?
As an aside, whilst I have no issue with the word enforcement, since
ICANN will not employ blue helmets, I am not sure that IP interests
would be that keen on relieving ICANN of its obligation to protect the
right to property (on matters properly within mission).
On 28/01/16 17:51, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Nigel,
>
> I have to disagree with your interpretation of the proposed bylaw. The
> "applicable law" restriction only applies to ICANN's obligation (if any)
> to "protect" and "enforce" human rights. It does not apply to ICANN's
> obligation to "respect" human rights. As such, ICANN would be required
> to take into account human rights from the posture of "respecting" them.
>
> What exactly does that mean? Well, that's what will be determined in
> WS2. Avri believes that it would include a human rights impact
> assessment. Is she right? Wait for WS2. Some think the Ruggie
> Principles should apply, while others believe that there are significant
> problems with that idea. Who is right? Wait for WS2. Is this intended
> to change how ICANN operates (including policy development) or is just a
> backstop to prevent ICANN from backsliding from its current level of
> commitment (arguably enforced by the NTIA relationship)? Wait for WS2.
> Are sequels better than the original or do they tend to be
> unimaginative, bloody and trite? Wait for WS2.
>
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net
> <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>> wrote:
>
> But do you want a cleverly drafted by-law that guarantees that human
> rights are not required to be taken into account (whilst appearing
> to say the contrary), or a word-is-my-bond committment from the
> current Board, who are at least, a lot more trustworthy than some
> Boards that there were heretofore?
>
> You can only pick one.
>
>
> On 28/01/16 17:25, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The problem with a firm commitment by the Board is that it
> something
> that can be undone or changed by a future Board with ease and at
> their
> will. Unlike a bylaw which involves a multistakeholder process.
>
> Without the bylaw, there is no guarantee.
>
> avri
>
> On 28-Jan-16 11:21, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
> HR should be referenced in intermediate Bylaws and drafted
> at WS2. Based on our dis discussions and REC . once FOI is
> ready the final legal text shall be approved and included
> in the Definitive Bylaws. In the meantime Board,s firm
> commitment once approved by CCWG shall apply
> Kabouss .
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 28 Jan 2016, at 16:33, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 28-Jan-16 09:25, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 02:05:26PM +0000, Nigel
> Roberts wrote:
> ICANN must simply respect human rights. That's it.
>
> I wish I knew what this is supposed to mean for
> ICANN action, though.
> I'm trying to imagine something where ICANN would
> act differently in
> the presence or absence of the bylaw, and I've been
> unable to come up
> with anything.
>
> As I have mentioned before, for me the prime issue is
> that human rights
> impact analysis be done as part of the PDP process as
> opposed to just
> waiting to see if some government agency slaps our wrist
> afterwards for
> not having considered the impact of, e.g., freedom of
> expression or an
> open internet. At this point we just do stuff and then
> wait to see if
> NTIA, or any other federal agency, or the GAC lets us
> know that we have
> messed up. Requiring that we respect Human Rights
> includes it being in
> scope as a consideration that is understood and
> discussed when policy is
> made and considered for approval.
>
> Without the bylaw such considerations remain out of
> scope in a future
> where there is no backstop for our actions. i believe
> that taking on
> this responsibility is our only reliable response to the
> NTIA
> requirement. And I believe that the fears of such a
> bylaw have been
> shown to be emotional and not fact based.
>
>
>
> (That's also, I suppose, why I don't really have an
> opinion about what ought to be done here, except
> that we should come
> to a speedy conclusion so that the document can ship
> and we can get
> the transition over with.)
>
> I see this as a gating issue.
>
> Though I do not think our work can ever be called
> speedy, even if we
> were to reach consensus this week.
> And this is just the start of the transition, unless you
> also believe
> that implementation and WS2 are not part of the transition.
>
> avri
>
> ---
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <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
>
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list