[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights

Sun Apr 16 04:41:46 UTC 2017

Rudy,

That's not really what's happening here.

First, the Board is proposing an assessment of the impact of the Human
Rights Bylaw, not a "human rights impact assessment."  Two completely
different things.  This could just as easily be an assessment of the impact
of changing ICANN's fiscal year.  So, I think you are mixing up impact
assessments here.

Second, there is no "principle of WSG2 HR's framework of HRIA."  I'm not
exactly sure what "WSG2 HR" means, but if it refers to the subgroup, the
subgroup document only states "Supporting Organizations could consider
defining and incorporating Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) in their
respective policy development processes."  That is neither a "framework of
HRIA" nor is  it a "principle."   Even if it were, it would obviously be
inappropriate and premature for the Board to "accept" anything that had
only been considered at the subgroup level and did not have the approval of
the full CCWG.

As such there is nothing to "work across the ICANN eco stystem."  To the
extent the question is how could HRIAs "work across the ICANN eco system,"
I would say the answer is in our considerations document, which leaves the
possibility of any application of HRIAs to policy development in the hands
of the ICANN structures tasked with managing policy development -- the
Supporting Organizations (see quote above).  Presumably, the same principle
of bottom-up consideration would apply to the ACs as well -- but all of
this is really a question beyond the remit of the Subgroup or the CCWG.

Best regards,

Greg

*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
gregshatanipc at gmail.com

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Stepping back, In my thinking, it is a great step forward for the icann
> board to accept the principle of WSG2 HR 's framework of HRIA. so how is it
> going to work across the ICANN eco system?
> rd
>
> On Apr 13, 2017 6:57 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:
>
>> Sounds as though Greg agrees with Seun as to “ICANN organization” meaning
>> staff.    I certainly don’t blame the Board for asking about the impact of
>> the FOI - HR.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding Greg’s reminder as to “stress tests”, I don’t see how an FOI-HR
>>  impact analysis can avoid the issue of dispute resolution mechanisms and
>> the availability of  Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review
>> Process for asserting a violation of the Core Value.   These formal
>> mechanisms are very clearly invoked, i.e. “no RFR or IRP based on the HR
>> Core Value until the FOI is adopted” (see Section 27.2 pasted below).
>>
>>
>>
>> One “impact” question is whether there is an Empowered Community
>> challenge available if the EC wants to “Initiate a Community
>> Reconsideration Request, mediation or a Community IRP” pursuant to Section
>> 6.2 (a) (viii) of the attachment.  And how does this figure into the Annex
>> D EC Mechanism?  How does an EC RFR or IRP differ from other RFRs and
>> IRPs?   Can both types be maintained at that same time?  Could there be
>> conflicting RFRs and IRPs resulting from Board decisions, e.g. based on
>> different Human Rights claims?  Seems as though ICANN Legal will have to be
>> involved in this analysis.
>>
>>
>>
>> So here’s a stress test: - The Board proposes a budget item for a Human
>> Rights Impact Assessment  (since they have the Core Value and theoretically
>> will have adopted the FOI).   Staff may want to consider the following in
>> relation to the potential “impact” of a proposed HRIA (depending on cost
>> and scope of same and given “no cherry-picking”):
>>
>>
>>
>> http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PROJECTS/Resources/40940-
>> 1331068268558/HRIA_Web.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: cid:image003.png at 01D2B466.72809920]
>>
>>
>>
>> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>>
>> Of Counsel
>>
>> 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
>>
>> 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
>>
>> AAikman at lrrc.com
>>
>> _____________________________
>>
>> [image: cid:image002.png at 01D2B46E.80B36B50]
>>
>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>>
>> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>>
>> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>>
>> lrrc.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* McAuley, David [mailto:dmcauley at verisign.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:19 PM
>> *To:* gregshatanipc at gmail.com; seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>> *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; ws2-hr at icann.org;
>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights
>>
>>
>>
>> [Part of string deleted to make shorter]
>>
>>
>>
>> This makes sense to me, Greg, especially the last bullet – would be nice
>> to hear from Board on their assessment (presumably not yet stated) on the
>> “Considerations” portion of the unified subgroup document.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> David McAuley
>>
>> International Policy Manager
>>
>> Verisign Inc.
>>
>> 703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:10 PM
>> *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; <ws2-hr at icann.org> <
>> ws2-hr at icann.org>; McAuley, David <dmcauley at Verisign.com>;
>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm fairly confident that this is what the letter is saying:
>>
>>
>>
>> The Board also expresses its support for the additional efforts *[i.e.,
>> the considerations document]* to complete a review of the items noted in
>> WS1 Annex 12 to ensure they have been fully covered in the draft FOI, and
>> to further inform the development of additional implementation
>> recommendations to accompany the FOI *[someone is supposed to develop
>> additional implementation recommendations]*.
>>
>>
>>
>> As part of those implementation recommendations, the Board is asking
>> ICANN organization *[i.e., staff]* to conduct an impact assessment to
>> understand how the implementation of the recommendations would impact the
>> organization. *[It appears that the staff is developing these
>> implementation recommendations.]* The Board encourages the CCWG *[i.e.,
>> this Subgroup, primarily] *to provide examples of how the FoI is to be
>> implemented and the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact to
>> assist *[the staff] *with this work. This will be an important point of
>> information for the whole of the ICANN community *[i.e, the CCWG and the
>> rest of the community via public comments and SO/AC approvals]* in their
>> deliberations of the final recommendations.
>>
>>
>>
>> In other words:
>>
>>
>>
>>    - The Board knows that we're working on the Considerations document.
>>    - The Considerations document will be used to develop implementation
>>    recommendations to accompany the FoI
>>    - Staff is developing these implementation recommendations.
>>
>>
>>    - As part of that work, Staff is doing an impact assessment.
>>
>>
>>    - CCWG (really, *this subgroup*) needs to create *examples* of (1)
>>    how the FoI is to be implemented and (2) the areas of work that the FoI is
>>    expected to impact.
>>    - CCWG needs to give those examples to the staff,
>>
>>
>>    - Staff will use these example in doing the impact assessment.
>>
>>
>>    - CCWG also needs to make these examples available to the entire
>>    ICANN community.
>>
>>
>>    - Public comments and SO/ACs should take these examples, as well as
>>       the implementation recommendations (including the impact assessment) into
>>       account when deciding whether to approve the final recommendations.
>>
>>
>>    - Based on Niels' followup, at this point, rather than working on
>>    examples now, we can wait until we hear from the Board (and others) in the
>>    public comment on the initial recommendations.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>>
>>
>>
>> (With regard to "examples," it should not be forgotten that the CCWG
>> Charter says "In order to facilitate evaluation and adoption of its
>> proposals, the CCWG-Accountability is expected to provide a detailed
>> description on how its proposals would provide an adequate level of
>> resistance to contingencies (“stress tests”), *within the scope of each
>> Work Stream*." (emphasis added))
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>    -
>>
>>
>>
>> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
>> S: gsshatan
>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428>
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-hr mailing list
>> Ws2-hr at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170416/a3ea73ef/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6514 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170416/a3ea73ef/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 138289 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170416/a3ea73ef/image003-0001.png>