<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Can second every word Matt said here.</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Tanya <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/10/17 12:47, Matthew Shears
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b90cbd0d-d502-4f57-d140-9c1e623d5edd@intpolicy.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<p>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"?<br>
</p>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Matthew<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/10/2017 20:54, Aikman-Scalese,
Anne wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9A9B4207E6315F4080868F440D9CFC7A73477964@ODCMBX01-1.firm.lrrlaw.com">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText">Thomas et al,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Anne<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#AF272F">Anne
E. Aikman-Scalese</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">Of
Counsel</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">520.629.4428
office</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="336"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">520.879.4725
fax</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com"
target="_new" title="Email User"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">AAikman@lrrc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">_____________________________</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><img
id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part2.83418A53.DB63AC02@mpicc.de"
class="" height="46" border="0" width="115"></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">One
South Church Avenue, Suite 700</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#323232">Tucson,
Arizona 85701-1611</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="336">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Ruggie
Principle 18. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">In
order to gauge human rights risks, business
enterprises should identify <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">and
assess any actual or potential adverse human
rights impacts with <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">which
they may be involved either through their own
activities or as a <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">result
of their business relationships. This process
should: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">(a)
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Draw
on internal and/or independent external human
rights <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">expertise;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">(b)
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Involve
meaningful consultation with potentially affected
groups <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">and
other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate to the
size of the <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">business
enterprise and the nature and context of the
operation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
valign="top" width="336"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On 29-Sep-17 19:59, Aikman-Scalese,
Anne wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> So what was everyone on the
plenary CCWG- ACCT call yesterday <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Seems to me this is especially the
case when a minority view is attached to a proposed
recommendation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">avri<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Ws2-hr mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<hr> <font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1"><br>
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. <br>
</font> <br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:matthew@intpolicy.com">matthew@intpolicy.com</a>
+447712472987
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="Skype:mshears">Skype:mshears</a></pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>