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

Tue Oct 3 14:38:12 UTC 2017

Can second every word Matt said here.

Cheers,

Tanya

On 03/10/17 12:47, Matthew Shears wrote:
>
> As Anne, I would like to know both the procedure and justification for
> "new language being proposed at the plenary level with no prior
> consideration of that language at the subgroup"?
>
> I also do not understand why we are characterizing the positions as
> "Zero Ruggie" or " All Ruggie".   As Anne notes, "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. 
> ... In the ICANN environment, following all Ruggie principles creates
> too broad a sweep by far."  These points were made in the sub-group
> discussions and on the lists on numerous occasions.  And the work of
> the sub-group is not Zero Ruggie - this is a mis-characterization.
>
> I also do not believe that it is appropriate to rewrite the
> “Considerations” document is at the plenary level.   The
> considerations document as it stands - and agreed by the sub group -
> should provide all that is needed in terms of references to Ruggie.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 02/10/2017 20:54, Aikman-Scalese, Anne 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 office
>>
>>
>> 520.879.4725 fax
>>
>> AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto: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
>
> -- 
>
>
> Matthew Shears
> matthew at intpolicy.com
> +447712472987
> Skype:mshears
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20171003/85052d3b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 6518 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20171003/85052d3b/attachment-0001.png>