[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences

Nigel Roberts nigel at channelisles.net
Fri Sep 29 05:29:42 UTC 2017


 From a human rights perspective it really doesn't matter that whether a 
business is not-for-profit or not. Qualifying it in this way is 
mealy-mouthed.

Especially as it has no legal or other effect

Some really terrible human rights abuses have been committed by 
non-profit orgnaisations. Even the UN.

See 
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/07/stop-peacekeeper-abuse-170730125107601.html

ICANN either supports and promotes international standards of human 
rights or it doesn't.

Which is it?



Nigel

On 28/09/17 16:28, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
> From a human rights perspective it really doesn't matter that whethe a business is not-for-profit or not. Qualifying it in this way is mealy-mouthed. 

Especially as it has no legal or other effect

Some really terrible human rights abuses have been committed by 
non-profit orgnaisations. Even the UN.

See 
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/07/stop-peacekeeper-abuse-170730125107601.html

ICANN either supports and promotes international standards of human 
rights or it doesn't.

Which is it?



Nigel
> I do not see the problem with including a statement such as this.
> 
> Perhaps I would indicate that it was a not for profit business instead
> of a business and would insert an "as appropriate" after "as a useful
> guide".
> 
> But I think mentioning this among the international instruments is a
> good idea.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 28-Sep-17 08:21, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>   
>>
>> Further to my Email below, I would like to share with you the
>> following proposal that would constitute in my view an acceptable
>> outcome of the public consultation on the Framework of Interpretation,
>> and build on the wording proposals made by Switzerland in its public
>> comment input (see attached) and the exchanges had thereafter in the
>> Subgroup.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Specifically, I would like to propose that the following paragraph on
>> page 6 (under “internationally recognized human rights”) be reworded
>> as follows (changes in red):
>>
>>   
>>
>> “/By committing to one or more of these international instruments,
>> nation states are expected to embed human rights in their national
>> legislation*. */
>>
>> */The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are
>> relevant for business organizations. Insofar ICANN the Organization is
>> concerned, it should consider, as a business, the UN Guiding
>> Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a useful guide when
>> applying the Human Rights Core Value./**“*
>>
>>   
>>
>> The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights (UNGP) are
>> the universally accepted voluntary standard for business
>> organizations. Therefore, we feel that it should be mentioned under
>> the instruments regarding “internationally recognized human rights”.
>> In order to avoid any extension of the UNGP to the non-business
>> elements of ICANN (SO/ACs) there is specific mention that the UNGP
>> would be relevant only for ICANN the Organization. In addition, the
>> mention is constrained to having to “consider” the UNGP “as a useful
>> guide” – which, in our view, eliminates any perceived danger of
>> creating any obligation whatsoever through this mention.
>>
>>   
>>
>> I hope that this compromise proposal may be positively considered by
>> all of you. Please note that it is made only by me with the aim of
>> arriving at a common ground and that it has not been possible to
>> coordinate due to time constraints with the other participants joining
>> the dissent.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>>   
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>>   
>>
>>   
>>
>> *Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *Im Auftrag
>> von *Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
>> *Gesendet:* Montag, 25. September 2017 15:34
>> *An:* turcotte.bernard at gmail.com; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September
>> Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2
>>
>>   
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>   
>>
>> Regarding *agenda point 8* and specifically the *dissenting opinion*
>> attached to the Report from the Subgroup dealing with the Framework of
>> Interpretation (FOI) of the Human Rights Core Value (see p. 2 of the
>> attached document), which I have filed together with a number of
>> colleagues, I would like to share some thoughts and a suggested path
>> forward with the CCWG Plenary before the calls scheduled to discuss this.
>>
>>   
>>
>> The main point of the dissent is, in my view, that we feel that the
>> public comment period showed the existence of two schools of thought:
>> some that favored maintaining the text sent to public comment “as is”
>> (ALAC to a certain extent, and a number of different GNSO
>> constituencies) and those (UK, BRZ, and CH) proposing some steps
>> forward, especially in the recognition of the UN Guiding Principles
>> (Ruggie Principles).
>>
>>   
>>
>> However, again in our view, the discussions in the Subgroup did not
>> yield a properly balanced result, which would have reflected at least
>> some if not all of the positions and proposals made by the named
>> Governments. This relates in particular, _that the FOI text should
>> make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most
>> relevant voluntary international standard_. In our view, the Subgroup
>> did not undertake an inclusive enough effort to determine if a
>> compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this
>> position of the three governments.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Therefore, I would like to _suggest that the CCWG Plenary could decide
>> that some additional efforts to reaching a broader consensus on this
>> important issue should be made_ – a broader consensus that could be
>> more inclusive of all views expressed during the public comment period.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Hence, I would _suggest that the CCWG decides that the Report together
>> with the dissent are sent back to the Subgroup with the request that a
>> broader consensus solution is quickly sought within the coming e.g. 2
>> weeks after the Plenary call_.
>>
>>   
>>
>> I hope this way to proceed may seem reasonable to you and obtain your
>> support during the abovementioned call. I would be happy to answer any
>> questions you may have and look forward to your feedback.
>>
>>   
>>
>> For my part I’ll try hard to attend the Wednesday call, but I’m
>> (physically) attending at the same time /the UN CSTD Working Group on
>> Enhanced Cooperation/. Hence, I would be very thankful if this issue
>> could be discussed on the Thursday call instead if possible.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>   
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>>   
>>
>>   
>>
>> *Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *Im Auftrag
>> von *Bernard Turcotte
>> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. September 2017 18:05
>> *An:* Accountability Cross Community
>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>> *Betreff:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September
>> Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2
>>
>>   
>>
>> All,
>>
>>   
>>
>> Please fins below and attached the agenda for the 27-28 September plenary.
>>
>>   
>>
>> As noted in an earlier email the Co-Chairs do not believe the plenary
>> can get through all of these materials in a single two hour session
>> and that it is imperative we do so this week given the timing
>> constraints we are working under. As such an additional 2 hour plenary
>> session has been added 28 September 1900 UTC (the original plenary
>> meeting scheduled for 27 September 1300 UTC still stands).
>>
>>   
>>
>> Also please note that given the large volume of documents we will be
>> including these in two separate emails to avoid size limit issues for
>> participants.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or
>> problems with the documents.
>>
>>   
>>
>>   
>>
>> Bernard Turcotte
>>
>> ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2
>>
>>   
>>
>> *Agenda for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary of 27 and 28 September*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> 1.     Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior
>>
>> 2.     Review of Agenda
>>
>> 3.     Administration
>>
>> 3.1.Review timeline.
>>
>> 3.2.Reminder of 27 October face to face in Abu Dhabi.
>>
>> 3.3.Reminder of High Interest sessions in Abu Dhabi
>>
>> 4.     Legal Committee Update
>>
>> 4.1.​         Question sent to ICANN Legal on Ombudsman recommendation
>> 8 regarding the independence of the proposed Ombuds Advisory Panel
>> (questions sent directly to ICANN legal on approval of Co-chairs).
>>
>> 4.2.Transparency – at the 13 September meeting of the sub-group
>> updated language for recommendations 2, 15 and 16 were considered.
>> ICANN Legal advised that they would consider these and provide written
>> feedback to the sub-group.
>>
>> 5.     Point on Quorum (held over from last plenary)
>>
>> 6.     Second Reading of the draft recommendations of the Diversity
>> sub-group.
>>
>>        o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Diversity-DrafRecommendations-20170927
>>          (attached - same document as distributed to the 30 August plenary)
>>
>> 7.     First reading of the final recommendations of the SOAC
>> Accountability sub-group.
>>
>>        o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-20170927 (attached)
>>        o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-RedLine-20170927
>>          (attached)
>>        o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-AnalysisandResponsetoPublicComments-20170927
>>          (attached)
>>
>> 8.     First reading of the final recommendations of the Human Rights
>> sub-group.
>>
>>        o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRight-FinalReportWithAdditions-20170927
>>          (attached)
>>        o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRights-PublicConsultation-May2017-Responses
>>          (attached)
>>
>> 9.     First reading of the draft recommendation of the Ombuds
>> sub-group (please note that the final report of the external review is
>> provided as a separate file due to size issues)
>>
>>        o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendations-20170927
>>          (attached in second email)
>>        o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-ExternalReview-Final (attached
>>          in second email)
>>
>> 10.First reading of the draft recommendation of the Staff
>> Accountability sub-group.
>>
>>        o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-20170927V1.6
>>          (attached in second email)
>>        o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-TrnasmissionLetter-20170927
>>          (attached in second email)
>>
>> 11.AOB
>>
>> 12.​Next Plenaries
>>
>> 12.1.               Thursday 28 September 19:00UTC​
>>
>> 12.2.               Wednesday 4 October 0500 UTC (optional but please
>> schedule)
>>
>> 12.3.               Wednesday 11 October 1300 UTC (optional but please
>> schedule)
>>
>> 12.4.               Wednesday 18 October 1900UTC
>>
>> 13.Adjournment
>>
>>   
>>
>>   
>>
>>   
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list