<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The "respect/protect/enforce" rubric being used here is lifted from the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (aka the Ruggie Principles), which are meant to implement the UN's "protect, respect and remedy" framework. <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf">http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf</a></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In that division of responsibilities, it is the role of governments to protect against human rights abuses and to engage in enforcement (i.e., "prevent, investigate, punish and
redress such abuse through effective policies, legislation, regulations
and adjudication") in order to protect against human rights abuses.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Meanwhile, business enterprises have the role of respecting human rights, i.e., they should avoid infringing on the internationally recognized human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">That is not to say that ICANN should adopt those exact definitions or that ICANN should adopt the Ruggie Principles at all. There have been concerns expressed regarding how a number of provisions fit ICANN's role, in particular concern about the second prong of "respect": addressing adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved, since that could obligate ICANN to take actions with regard to all of its contractual counterparties and even with regard to ccTLDs.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">One could argue that ICANN does not fit the mould of a "business enterprise" at all, and that it's role should be different from "respect", at least as laid out in the Ruggie Principles. In other words, mapping the "respect/protect/enforce" concepts against ICANN's Bylaws and activities may not work so well.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">There are others who would say that the Ruggie Principles work quite well and that any modifications are minor and don't disqualify Ruggie as the starting point for considering ICANN's obligations. <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">This is all food for thought for Work Stream 2, I guess.</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Nigel Roberts <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">MAYBE, just maybe, we can put this to bed.<br>
<br>
Can you construe (deconstruct) the latest language for me, the way you see it, please?<br>
<br>
As an aside, whilst I have no issue with the word enforcement, since ICANN will not employ blue helmets, I am not sure that IP interests would be that keen on relieving ICANN of its obligation to protect the right to property (on matters properly within mission).<span class=""><br>
<br>
On 28/01/16 17:51, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
Nigel,<br>
<br>
I have to disagree with your interpretation of the proposed bylaw. The<br>
"applicable law" restriction only applies to ICANN's obligation (if any)<br>
to "protect" and "enforce" human rights. It does not apply to ICANN's<br>
obligation to "respect" human rights. As such, ICANN would be required<br>
to take into account human rights from the posture of "respecting" them.<br>
<br>
What exactly does that mean? Well, that's what will be determined in<br>
WS2. Avri believes that it would include a human rights impact<br>
assessment. Is she right? Wait for WS2. Some think the Ruggie<br>
Principles should apply, while others believe that there are significant<br>
problems with that idea. Who is right? Wait for WS2. Is this intended<br>
to change how ICANN operates (including policy development) or is just a<br>
backstop to prevent ICANN from backsliding from its current level of<br>
commitment (arguably enforced by the NTIA relationship)? Wait for WS2.<br>
Are sequels better than the original or do they tend to be<br>
unimaginative, bloody and trite? Wait for WS2.<br>
<br>
Greg<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Nigel Roberts <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a><br></span><div><div class="h5">
<mailto:<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
But do you want a cleverly drafted by-law that guarantees that human<br>
rights are not required to be taken into account (whilst appearing<br>
to say the contrary), or a word-is-my-bond committment from the<br>
current Board, who are at least, a lot more trustworthy than some<br>
Boards that there were heretofore?<br>
<br>
You can only pick one.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 28/01/16 17:25, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
The problem with a firm commitment by the Board is that it<br>
something<br>
that can be undone or changed by a future Board with ease and at<br>
their<br>
will. Unlike a bylaw which involves a multistakeholder process.<br>
<br>
Without the bylaw, there is no guarantee.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
On 28-Jan-16 11:21, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>
<br>
HR should be referenced in intermediate Bylaws and drafted<br>
at WS2. Based on our dis discussions and REC . once FOI is<br>
ready the final legal text shall be approved and included<br>
in the Definitive Bylaws. In the meantime Board,s firm<br>
commitment once approved by CCWG shall apply<br>
Kabouss .<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
On 28 Jan 2016, at 16:33, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a><br></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 28-Jan-16 09:25, Andrew Sullivan wrote:<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 02:05:26PM +0000, Nigel<br>
Roberts wrote:<br>
ICANN must simply respect human rights. That's it.<br>
<br>
I wish I knew what this is supposed to mean for<br>
ICANN action, though.<br>
I'm trying to imagine something where ICANN would<br>
act differently in<br>
the presence or absence of the bylaw, and I've been<br>
unable to come up<br>
with anything.<br>
<br>
As I have mentioned before, for me the prime issue is<br>
that human rights<br>
impact analysis be done as part of the PDP process as<br>
opposed to just<br>
waiting to see if some government agency slaps our wrist<br>
afterwards for<br>
not having considered the impact of, e.g., freedom of<br>
expression or an<br>
open internet. At this point we just do stuff and then<br>
wait to see if<br>
NTIA, or any other federal agency, or the GAC lets us<br>
know that we have<br>
messed up. Requiring that we respect Human Rights<br>
includes it being in<br>
scope as a consideration that is understood and<br>
discussed when policy is<br>
made and considered for approval.<br>
<br>
Without the bylaw such considerations remain out of<br>
scope in a future<br>
where there is no backstop for our actions. i believe<br>
that taking on<br>
this responsibility is our only reliable response to the<br>
NTIA<br>
requirement. And I believe that the fears of such a<br>
bylaw have been<br>
shown to be emotional and not fact based.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(That's also, I suppose, why I don't really have an<br>
opinion about what ought to be done here, except<br>
that we should come<br>
to a speedy conclusion so that the document can ship<br>
and we can get<br>
the transition over with.)<br>
<br>
I see this as a gating issue.<br>
<br>
Though I do not think our work can ever be called<br>
speedy, even if we<br>
were to reach consensus this week.<br>
And this is just the start of the transition, unless you<br>
also believe<br>
that implementation and WS2 are not part of the transition.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast<br>
antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br></div></div>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><span class=""><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br></span>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><span class=""><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br></span>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote></div><br></div>