<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Whether ICANN is non-profit or not is beside the point. That is not the issue.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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....)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Nor does that help resolve the concerns that brought us to the position that some would like to change.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:29 AM, 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">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.<br>
<br>
Especially as it has no legal or other effect<br>
<br>
Some really terrible human rights abuses have been committed by non-profit orgnaisations. Even the UN.<br>
<br>
See <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/07/stop-peacekeeper-abuse-170730125107601.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.aljazeera.com/indep<wbr>th/features/2017/07/stop-peace<wbr>keeper-abuse-170730125107601.<wbr>html</a><br>
<br>
ICANN either supports and promotes international standards of human rights or it doesn't.<br>
<br>
Which is it?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Nigel<br>
<br>
On 28/09/17 16:28, avri doria wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi,<br>
>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. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Especially as it has no legal or other effect<br>
<br>
Some really terrible human rights abuses have been committed by non-profit orgnaisations. Even the UN.<br>
<br>
See <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/07/stop-peacekeeper-abuse-170730125107601.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.aljazeera.com/indep<wbr>th/features/2017/07/stop-peace<wbr>keeper-abuse-170730125107601.<wbr>html</a><br>
<br>
ICANN either supports and promotes international standards of human rights or it doesn't.<br>
<br>
Which is it?<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Nigel</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I do not see the problem with including a statement such as this.<br>
<br>
Perhaps I would indicate that it was a not for profit business instead<br>
of a business and would insert an "as appropriate" after "as a useful<br>
guide".<br>
<br>
But I think mentioning this among the international instruments is a<br>
good idea.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
On 28-Sep-17 08:21, <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
<br>
Further to my Email below, I would like to share with you the<br>
following proposal that would constitute in my view an acceptable<br>
outcome of the public consultation on the Framework of Interpretation,<br>
and build on the wording proposals made by Switzerland in its public<br>
comment input (see attached) and the exchanges had thereafter in the<br>
Subgroup.<br>
<br>
<br>
Specifically, I would like to propose that the following paragraph on<br>
page 6 (under “internationally recognized human rights”) be reworded<br>
as follows (changes in red):<br>
<br>
<br>
“/By committing to one or more of these international instruments,<br>
nation states are expected to embed human rights in their national<br>
legislation*. */<br>
<br>
*/The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are<br>
relevant for business organizations. Insofar ICANN the Organization is<br>
concerned, it should consider, as a business, the UN Guiding<br>
Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a useful guide when<br>
applying the Human Rights Core Value./**“*<br>
<br>
<br>
The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights (UNGP) are<br>
the universally accepted voluntary standard for business<br>
organizations. Therefore, we feel that it should be mentioned under<br>
the instruments regarding “internationally recognized human rights”.<br>
In order to avoid any extension of the UNGP to the non-business<br>
elements of ICANN (SO/ACs) there is specific mention that the UNGP<br>
would be relevant only for ICANN the Organization. In addition, the<br>
mention is constrained to having to “consider” the UNGP “as a useful<br>
guide” – which, in our view, eliminates any perceived danger of<br>
creating any obligation whatsoever through this mention.<br>
<br>
<br>
I hope that this compromise proposal may be positively considered by<br>
all of you. Please note that it is made only by me with the aim of<br>
arriving at a common ground and that it has not been possible to<br>
coordinate due to time constraints with the other participants joining<br>
the dissent.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
<br>
<br>
Jorge<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*Von:*<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-com<wbr>munity-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity-bounces@icann.org</a>] *Im Auftrag<br>
von *<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
*Gesendet:* Montag, 25. September 2017 15:34<br>
*An:* <a href="mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com" target="_blank">turcotte.bernard@gmail.com</a>; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community<wbr>@icann.org</a><br>
*Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September<br>
Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
<br>
Regarding *agenda point 8* and specifically the *dissenting opinion*<br>
attached to the Report from the Subgroup dealing with the Framework of<br>
Interpretation (FOI) of the Human Rights Core Value (see p. 2 of the<br>
attached document), which I have filed together with a number of<br>
colleagues, I would like to share some thoughts and a suggested path<br>
forward with the CCWG Plenary before the calls scheduled to discuss this.<br>
<br>
<br>
The main point of the dissent is, in my view, that we feel that the<br>
public comment period showed the existence of two schools of thought:<br>
some that favored maintaining the text sent to public comment “as is”<br>
(ALAC to a certain extent, and a number of different GNSO<br>
constituencies) and those (UK, BRZ, and CH) proposing some steps<br>
forward, especially in the recognition of the UN Guiding Principles<br>
(Ruggie Principles).<br>
<br>
<br>
However, again in our view, the discussions in the Subgroup did not<br>
yield a properly balanced result, which would have reflected at least<br>
some if not all of the positions and proposals made by the named<br>
Governments. This relates in particular, _that the FOI text should<br>
make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most<br>
relevant voluntary international standard_. In our view, the Subgroup<br>
did not undertake an inclusive enough effort to determine if a<br>
compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this<br>
position of the three governments.<br>
<br>
<br>
Therefore, I would like to _suggest that the CCWG Plenary could decide<br>
that some additional efforts to reaching a broader consensus on this<br>
important issue should be made_ – a broader consensus that could be<br>
more inclusive of all views expressed during the public comment period.<br>
<br>
<br>
Hence, I would _suggest that the CCWG decides that the Report together<br>
with the dissent are sent back to the Subgroup with the request that a<br>
broader consensus solution is quickly sought within the coming e.g. 2<br>
weeks after the Plenary call_.<br>
<br>
<br>
I hope this way to proceed may seem reasonable to you and obtain your<br>
support during the abovementioned call. I would be happy to answer any<br>
questions you may have and look forward to your feedback.<br>
<br>
<br>
For my part I’ll try hard to attend the Wednesday call, but I’m<br>
(physically) attending at the same time /the UN CSTD Working Group on<br>
Enhanced Cooperation/. Hence, I would be very thankful if this issue<br>
could be discussed on the Thursday call instead if possible.<br>
<br>
<br>
Kind regards<br>
<br>
<br>
Jorge<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*Von:*<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-com<wbr>munity-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity-bounces@icann.org</a>><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity-bounces@icann.org</a>] *Im Auftrag<br>
von *Bernard Turcotte<br>
*Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. September 2017 18:05<br>
*An:* Accountability Cross Community<br>
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-communit<wbr>y@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity@icann.org</a>>><br>
*Betreff:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September<br>
Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2<br>
<br>
<br>
All,<br>
<br>
<br>
Please fins below and attached the agenda for the 27-28 September plenary.<br>
<br>
<br>
As noted in an earlier email the Co-Chairs do not believe the plenary<br>
can get through all of these materials in a single two hour session<br>
and that it is imperative we do so this week given the timing<br>
constraints we are working under. As such an additional 2 hour plenary<br>
session has been added 28 September 1900 UTC (the original plenary<br>
meeting scheduled for 27 September 1300 UTC still stands).<br>
<br>
<br>
Also please note that given the large volume of documents we will be<br>
including these in two separate emails to avoid size limit issues for<br>
participants.<br>
<br>
<br>
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or<br>
problems with the documents.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Bernard Turcotte<br>
<br>
ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2<br>
<br>
<br>
*Agenda for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary of 27 and 28 September*<br>
<br>
* *<br>
<br>
1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior<br>
<br>
2. Review of Agenda<br>
<br>
3. Administration<br>
<br>
3.1.Review timeline.<br>
<br>
3.2.Reminder of 27 October face to face in Abu Dhabi.<br>
<br>
3.3.Reminder of High Interest sessions in Abu Dhabi<br>
<br>
4. Legal Committee Update<br>
<br>
4.1. Question sent to ICANN Legal on Ombudsman recommendation<br>
8 regarding the independence of the proposed Ombuds Advisory Panel<br>
(questions sent directly to ICANN legal on approval of Co-chairs).<br>
<br>
4.2.Transparency – at the 13 September meeting of the sub-group<br>
updated language for recommendations 2, 15 and 16 were considered.<br>
ICANN Legal advised that they would consider these and provide written<br>
feedback to the sub-group.<br>
<br>
5. Point on Quorum (held over from last plenary)<br>
<br>
6. Second Reading of the draft recommendations of the Diversity<br>
sub-group.<br>
<br>
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Divers<wbr>ity-DrafRecommendations-201709<wbr>27<br>
(attached - same document as distributed to the 30 August plenary)<br>
<br>
7. First reading of the final recommendations of the SOAC<br>
Accountability sub-group.<br>
<br>
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAc<wbr>ct-FinalReport-20170927 (attached)<br>
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAc<wbr>ct-FinalReport-RedLine-2017092<wbr>7<br>
(attached)<br>
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAc<wbr>ct-AnalysisandResponsetoPublic<wbr>Comments-20170927<br>
(attached)<br>
<br>
8. First reading of the final recommendations of the Human Rights<br>
sub-group.<br>
<br>
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanR<wbr>ight-FinalReportWithAdditions-<wbr>20170927<br>
(attached)<br>
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanR<wbr>ights-PublicConsultation-<wbr>May2017-Responses<br>
(attached)<br>
<br>
9. First reading of the draft recommendation of the Ombuds<br>
sub-group (please note that the final report of the external review is<br>
provided as a separate file due to size issues)<br>
<br>
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombuds<wbr>man-DrafRecommendations-201709<wbr>27<br>
(attached in second email)<br>
o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombuds<wbr>man-ExternalReview-Final (<wbr>attached<br>
in second email)<br>
<br>
10.First reading of the draft recommendation of the Staff<br>
Accountability sub-group.<br>
<br>
o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-<wbr>DraftReport-20170927V1.6<br>
(attached in second email)<br>
o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-<wbr>DraftReport-TrnasmissionLetter<wbr>-20170927<br>
(attached in second email)<br>
<br>
11.AOB<br>
<br>
12.Next Plenaries<br>
<br>
12.1. Thursday 28 September 19:00UTC<br>
<br>
12.2. Wednesday 4 October 0500 UTC (optional but please<br>
schedule)<br>
<br>
12.3. Wednesday 11 October 1300 UTC (optional but please<br>
schedule)<br>
<br>
12.4. Wednesday 18 October 1900UTC<br>
<br>
13.Adjournment<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community<wbr>@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community<wbr>@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community<wbr>@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>