[cc-humanrights] Considerations on next steps
rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Mon Mar 23 11:57:51 UTC 2015
we will go along with the idea of working party. and we are going to have a
Niels and Marilia drafted document, what they already shared here. with the
objectives and scope for the working party.
"Draft goals and scope for CCWP HR
Cross-community working party for analyzing potential Human Rights
implications of ICANN’s policies and procedures
Member organizations: (name the SOs and ACs)
Each of the participating Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory
Committees (ACs) agrees to work towards achieving the goals of this
document and to seek input and participation from their communities.
This cross community working party (CCWP) seeks to map and understand
the issues and potential solutions for the impact that policies,
procedures and operations of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) have on human rights. In particular it
focuses on the corporate responsibility of ICANN to respect human
rights. It builds on a long term community engagement on this topic,
further catalysed with the publication of the paper 'ICANN's
procedures and policies in the light of human rights, fundamental
freedoms and democratic values', as commissioned by the Council of
Europe, and after sessions held in London, Los Angeles and Singapore.
It seeks to improve ICANN's measures to respect human rights, in
accordance with article 4 of ICANN's articles of incorporation.
The CCWP on ICANN and Human Rights would have the purpose to raise
awareness, provide information, facilitate dialogue and make
suggestions to the ICANN community on ways to better harmonize ICANN’s
policies and procedures with internationally recognized human rights
standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The working party will focus on human rights that are directly
impacted by ICANN policy decisions, procedures and operations.
Responsibilities and scope of work:
(i) To continue the process of raising awareness about the interplay
between ICANN’s policies, procedures and operations and human rights;
(ii) To map and collect information from the community about cases as
well as current ICANN policies,procedures and operations that present
an impact on human rights in which further guidance on how to
harmonize policies and procedures with human rights would be necessary;;
(iii) To develop guidelines for the procedures that are in place or
that should be created in the policy development process to ensure the
respect for human rights;
(iv) To provide information, suggestions and recommendations to the
chartering organizations and to the broader ICANN community on how
ICANN’s policies and procedures can be developed and implemented
consistent with internationally recognized human rights standards.
This input can inform the policy development processes as defined in
the ICANN Bylaws.
(v) To propose procedures and mechanisms with the aim of producing
assessments on if and how policies and procedures under developed
and/or being implemented may impact on human rights.
(vi) Draft Position Papers and Statements as deemed appropriate
(vii) To carry out further discussions about the pertinence and timing
for the creation of a cross-community working group on this issue.
The membership of the Working Party on ICANN and Human Rights is
proposed to include members representing the diversity of the ICANN
community. The Working Party will serve as a focal point for the
discussion, knowledge dissemination and communication about the impact
of ICANN's policies and procedures on Human Rights Its activities
will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner."
2015-03-18 23:04 GMT+09:00 Michele Neylon - Blacknight <
michele at blacknight.com>:
> So what are the next steps?
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Domains
> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Social: http://mneylon.social
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cc-humanrights-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cc-humanrights-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 2:29 AM
> To: Amr Elsadr
> Cc: cc-humanrights at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [cc-humanrights] Considerations on next steps
> Dear Amr,
> sorry if my message sounded professorial in tone - it was just to
> illustrate the trials and time wasted on process when the ALAC & NCSG did
> something which appeared to be nimble to start with - ICANN catches up with
> you! :-) We're in violent agreement.
> Kind regards,
> On 18/03/2015 09:31, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Coming from a part of the world where due process (along with human
> rights) is pretty much an alien notion, I have an affinity for process
> wherever I can find it. :) But I appreciate the frustration in processes
> hampering effectiveness and efficiency.
> > I agree that we don't need to follow in the footsteps of the CCWG-IG.
> That's why I also believe a working party is a constructive first step.
> Only meant to use it as an example for a CCWG that was established with
> only one of the GNSO's stakeholder groups along with another AC. I don't
> recall it ever being referred to as a joint working group rather than a
> CCWG, but if you say so, I will defer to your account of it.
> > Thanks.
> > Amr
> > On Mar 18, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> >> Dear Amr:
> >> On 17/03/2015 20:42, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> >>> However, I would like to note something at this time. Contrary to
> >>> what Jean-Jaques said, a CCWG does not necessarily need to be
> >>> chartered by the GNSO as a whole. Although that would be desirable,
> >>> a single Stakeholder Group (or more than one) within the GNSO could
> >>> adopt a charter if any other SO or AC is willing to participate as a
> >>> chartering organization. The CCWG-IG is an example of a CCWG that
> >>> came into existence before the GNSO adopted a charter. It started
> >>> off by being an initiative by the NCSG and ALAC. This was partly
> >>> because the charter of the CCWG was adopted many months after the
> >>> CCWG-IG actually began its work.
> >> I wouldn't take the CCWG on Internet Governance as an example. We
> >> initially started as a joint working group between the ALAC and the
> >> NCSG. This was picked up by David Olive and announced. We hoped
> >> others would joint and they did indeed, but rather fast and we ended
> >> up working without a charter, which was not ideal - especially with
> >> people trying to discredit the legitimacy of the group itself. It
> >> took several months to draft a charter and have it ratified by most
> >> (but not all) of the SOs and ACs and over a year later we're still
> >> grappling with the make-up of the CCWG's membership.
> >> That's the reason why I recommended we do not go down the CCWG route
> >> and that we set-up some kind of Working Party. Ultimately, I know,
> >> it's all "process" and I wish we didn't have so much red tape around
> >> things. :-)
> >> Kindest regards,
> >> Olivier
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> cc-humanrights mailing list
> cc-humanrights at icann.org
> cc-humanrights mailing list
> cc-humanrights at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-humanrights