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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Fri Sep 29 06:23:18 UTC 2017 

Whether ICANN is non-profit or not is beside the point.  That is not the
issue.

This is also not a binary issue.  In the US, the Republicans tried to make
their attempts at dismantling "Obamacare" into a binary issue -- "Either
you support repealing and replacing Obamacare or you support socialism."
 It didn't work (footnote: a lot of Americans are really scared of
socialism....)

Making it into a binary issue is fine rhetoric but it gets us nowhere.
Trying to put a heightened commitment to the UNGP into this document is not
a question of "supporting and promoting international standards of human
rights" or not.

Nor does that help resolve the concerns that brought us to the position
that some would like to change.

Greg

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>
wrote:

> 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-peace
> keeper-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-peace
> keeper-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
>>> @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-AnalysisandResponsetoPublic
>>> Comments-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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170929/ba341f7e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list