[cc-humanrights] Last call for CCWP charter

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon Apr 6 18:19:45 UTC 2015

I share your concerns Bill, but my principle motivation in supporting 
Patrik's proposal amounts to the following:
1.  the question I ask myself all the time, and not just in connection 
to my dissertation, is What does it take to get ICANN to change?  And I 
think the hook of corporate responsibility, given that they refuse to 
really see themselves as a policy body, is possibly worth a try.  Lets 
face it, anything is worth a try.
2.  I think the important thing is to get started and prepare a work 
plan.  The thing that needs scoping (ie to make sure we get it done) is 
the workplan.  CSR does nothing to hinder that, as near as I can tell.
3.  Folks are afraid of the term human rights.  I think CSR leads us 
away from potential roadblocks.  But you folks understand this crazy 
institution better than I do.
I am still reeling from sitting through (ok, talking through) the last 
meeting of the group that is finding a better way to implement the WHOIS 
conflicts procedure.  Utterly crazymaking.  The same folks and staff, 
who have their fingers planted firmly in their ears, are likely to show 
up at this group.  How does one get ready for that level of lunacy/obduracy?
PS Happy Easter/Passover weekend to all!

On 2015-04-06 2:55, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> On 6 apr 2015, at 08:29, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>> NCSG recently sent a reply to the Board Risk Committee request for feedback on Top 5 ICANN enterprise risks saying that "The first, overarching risk is if staff and leadership think of ICANN as an corporation with 'enterprise risks' rather than a community-driven global governance mechanism with global public responsibilities and associated risks.”  And here we’re saying that we think of ICANN as an corporation with enterprise social responsibilities, some of which relate to human rights.  So I guess it’s sort of the same argument one would make for Caterpillar Tractor or Exxon, except that the ‘product’ is policy.  I understand why CSR and the Ruggie principles appeal to people as an established ‘hook’ to say ICANN must pay attention, but somehow feel some vague discomfort with the ontological aspect.  Being on my first coffee of the day and not being a specialist in HR law I don’t have a clear vision of what the full implications of taking this down the CSR road might be relative to other possible paths, but if you all are confident it’s optimal then okydoky.
> FWIW, I agree with you Bill that there is a risk here that the discussion focus too much on the enterprise thinking on risk when in reality it is important ICANN both take care of the enterprise risks (which is the responsibility of ICANN as the corporation leadership and staff) AND the risks ICANN as the community take in the development of policies and what not.
> Specifically as, which I agree with, ICANN is more and more acting as a corporation and less as a community with a few strong PDPs that they host.
> That said, I think we now do have something we all understand what we want. We just need to choose the correct words.
>     Patrik
> _______________________________________________
> cc-humanrights mailing list
> cc-humanrights at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cc-humanrights/attachments/20150406/9547ec24/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the cc-humanrights mailing list