[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-hr] clarification re Human Right Subgroup work and FOI - Human Rights with "Considerations"

Mon Oct 2 21:38:04 UTC 2017

Question ...Do you think it may now become a necessity, to propose drafting
of Guiding principles on Business and Human Rights using the same UN
concept ie .. 'Protect, Respect and Remedy....as a framework and language
specifically tuned and adjusted to the multistakeholder principles of
internet governance crafted from existing models like Ruggie principle 18
...etc etc..
Is such a recommendation seen as feasible by ws2-hr and or the plenary?
rd

On Oct 2, 2017 12:54 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:

> Thomas et al,
>
> What I am trying to understand is the procedure involved with new language
> being proposed at the plenary level with no prior consideration of that
> language at the subgroup.  I had made specific proposals to include certain
> Ruggie language at the subgroup level with specific reference to
> incorporating Ruggie Principle 18 into the language that is applicable to
> ICANN the organization.  (In fact, I have been advocating reference to
> Ruggie 18(b) from the beginning of participating in WS2-Human Rights.)  So
> if we are considering new language at the plenary, I want to throw in my
> own recommendation that we refer specifically to Ruggie Principle 18 as a
> compromise position.
>
>
>
> I do not understand this black and white FACE-OFF as to "Zero Ruggie" or "
> All Ruggie".  David McCauley is quite right that not all Ruggie principles
> make sense for ICANN since it is not a typical "business" and its mission
> is limited, especially as to not interfering with content.  Much of what is
> contained in Ruggie Principles seeks to reach "all business relationships"
> and would thus exert influence over content, i.e. Ruggie would no doubt
> require putting provisions in Registry Agreements and Registrar Agreements
> that change obligations of these contracted parties to exert influence over
> registrants regarding Human Rights principles.  While this may be
> appropriate for a voluntary Public Interest Commitment on the part of a
> registry, it is certainly not appropriate as a “top-down” ICANN org
> policy.    In the ICANN environment, following all Ruggie principles
> creates too broad a sweep by far.   In addition, there is no other
> "business" that has used Ruggie that follows the multi-stakeholder
> bottom-up policy process, a process unique to ICANN.
>
>
>
> Mark Carvell got the WS2 drafting team on a call at one ICANN meeting with
> someone from the UN (with experience implementing Ruggie) and I
> specifically asked whether she had experience implementing Ruggie with an
> organization that operated on the bottom-up Multi-Stakeholder Model.
> Jorge Cancio was also in the room on this call and asked several
> questions.  Her response was (and I paraphrase)  "No, but ICANN is a
> quasi-governmental organization and has a lot of power to influence Human
> Rights going forward".  So for anyone who feels that ICANN is a
> quasi-governmental organization, they will push ICANN the organization in
> this direction without remembering the applicable law limitation and the
> fact that ICANN is NOT A QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL organization and its policy
> development is not the top-down process followed by other non-profits.
>
>
>
> Certain Ruggie Principles may work well within the limited mission of
> ICANN, most notably Principle 18, shown below my signature.  Others, as
> pointed out in a very thoughtful manner by David McCauley's post to the WS
> 2 HR list, are dangerous and would impose limits on content as well as
> increased difficulty in enforcing property rights (including Intellectual
> Property rights) which are not consistent with Human Rights.    While I may
> strongly disagree with certain views that could be posted at second level
> domains,  ICANN is not the place to try to regulate them.  And I disagree
> with the proposition that there should be an absolute right to post
> anonymously on the Internet as advocated by Article 19.  (Although I agree
> that monitoring “hate speech” is a very dangerous road to go down.)  It
> seems to me the highest principle here is disclosure, in other words,
> “Consider the Source”.
>
>
>
> Regarding the Human Right to privacy, recently it was noted that the
> Russian government may have been the true force and money behind several
> Facebook ads attempting to influence U.S. elections.  So now Facebook is
> cooperating to try to prevent that.  Why?  Because people should know the
> bias associated with statements when there is no "fact check" in place.
> There is also no "fact check" on content posted at second level domains and
> these are now “unlimited” in many respects.   Shouldn't people know where
> these opinions are coming from even if it's not the Russian government?
> What if it's Breitbart?  How should these concerns be balanced with the
> right to privacy of the individual? (Organizations can easily use
> individuals to post ads and advocate opinions.  In addition, who decides
> whether an association of individuals who believe similarly would have no
> right to privacy?)  Which second level domains were being used to influence
> US elections and do the registrants have a right to privacy for everything
> said on those domains as well?  Does it also apply to everything they sell
> on the domain to raise money to place their Facebook ads?  T-shirts?
> Coins?  Hats?  I would say, “Consider the Source” in all cases.   And be
> concerned as to why the source does not want to disclose itself.  Take that
> into account. Is it for nefarious purposes or is it for legitimate fear of
> unjust consequences – e.g. second level registrations at .gay?
>
>
>
> As an organization,  ICANN should not overreact to Snowden and to unjust
> laws in "outlier" governments.   Failure to balance privacy rights with
> other considerations related to policies that develop trust and confidence
> in the worldwide web will not only result in consumer harm, it could even
> throw elections.   "Consider the  Source" is the best adage for both
> opinions and products offered on the Internet.   This does not mean that
> the Spanish government should be able to shut down .cat, in fact it means
> the opposite.  Governments who stand for free speech and privacy  (and the
> legal systems established by those governments) should be protecting and
> enforcing those rights.
>
>
>
> If the “Considerations” document is now open to rewriting at the plenary
> level, then shouldn't we be considering other alternative proposals that
> were rejected by the drafting team?  The most important Ruggie Principle
> for faithfulness to the ICANN bottom-up  Multi-Stakeholder model appears
> below my signature, that is Ruggie Principle 18.  As this discussion is
> being developed further in the plenary, please keep in mind that Ruggie
> calls for a Grievance Procedure and that the Core Value itself contemplates
> both a Request for Reconsideration and an Independent Review Panel process
> in relation to Human Rights claims.
>
>
>
> Anne
>
>
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
>
> 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com
>
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> Ruggie Principle 18.
>
> In order to gauge human rights risks, business enterprises should identify
>
> and assess any actual or potential adverse human rights impacts with
>
> which they may be involved either through their own activities or as a
>
> result of their business relationships. This process should:
>
> (a)
>
> Draw on internal and/or independent external human rights
>
> expertise;
>
> (b)
>
> Involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups
>
> and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate to the size of the
>
> business enterprise and the nature and context of the operation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> On 29-Sep-17 19:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
>
> > So what was everyone on the plenary CCWG- ACCT call yesterday
>
> > referring to when they objected to the "compromise text" that was
> submitted to the CCWG list without having gone through the usual procedures
> in the subgroup?
>
>
>
> It seems to me that once an issue is described as having no consensus in a
> subgroup and there is a declaration that none is reachable, the next step
> is to take the question to the plenary for plenary discussion.
>
> Seems to me this is especially the case when a minority view is attached
> to a proposed recommendation.
>
>
>
> This is not the first time a knotty issue has been brought to the plenary
> or the first time a subgroup was given the opportunity to reconsider a
> subgroup decision that was not accepted at the plenary level.
>
>
>
> avri
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Ws2-hr mailing list
>
> Ws2-hr at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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/20171002/a6b01f40/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6518 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20171002/a6b01f40/image002-0001.png>