[cc-humanrights] [Cc-humanrights3] Draft board human rights commitment / statement

Michele Neylon - Blacknight michele at blacknight.com
Thu Feb 11 11:33:50 UTC 2016



The proposed wording at the moment isn’t very clear to me.

“operationalise its commitment to human rights” - whose? How? Are you talking about ICANN the corporate entity? The community? Are you trying to make something binding on contracted parties? What?
“contribute to a Human Rights Impact Assessment with the community of stakeholders” - again this is unclear. Does it refer to the ICANN corporate entity? ICANN policies? ICANN contracts? What?
“work on a process for remediation” - remediation of what?

I’ve read and re-read that draft language several times and it’s not clear to me at all



Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday 11 February 2016 at 11:27
To: Niels ten Oever <niels at article19.org<mailto:niels at article19.org>>
Cc: Michele Neylon <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>, Human Rights <cc-humanrights at icann.org<mailto:cc-humanrights at icann.org>>, "cc-humanrights3 at icann.org<mailto:cc-humanrights3 at icann.org>" <cc-humanrights3 at icann.org<mailto:cc-humanrights3 at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Cc-humanrights3] [cc-humanrights] Draft board human rights commitment / statement

Dear Niels, dear all,
after reading this short email exchange with Michele, I realised that may be we have to be clearer when we send the proposed wording of the statement to the board. I suggest inclusion of the explanation "what it means".
Furthermore, after the call yesterday I am still not convinced that we can be sure that the board wants to go further than the language provided in the bylaw. I can suggest as an alternative solution that we send two proposed statements: (1) the one we discussed on the call and which is based on the bylaw (2) the statement on operationalisation and assessment that we drafted after the call.
In this case, depending on what was the notion behind making this statement, the board can either chose one of them or draft a combination of two.
What do you think?

On 10 February 2016 at 16:29, Niels ten Oever via cc-humanrights3 <cc-humanrights3 at icann.org<mailto:cc-humanrights3 at icann.org>> wrote:
Hash: SHA256

Hi Michele,

This statement means that the ICANN board will:

1. operationalize it's commitment to human rights
2. contribute to a Human Rights Impact Assessment with the community
of stakeholders
3. contribute to the development of a Human Rights Policy with the
community of stakeholders
4. work on a process for remediation.

Does this make it more clear? If not, can you make your question a bit
more precise?



Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

On 02/10/2016 04:24 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> The board of ICANN commits to take concrete steps to
>>> operationalize its core value of respecting human rights
>>> within ICANN's mission. The steps will include working together
>>> with the community to understand the potential human rights
>>> impacts of its operations through a human rights impact
>>> assessment, engagement of the board, management, staff and
>>> stakeholders toward a common understanding of priority human
>>> rights issues, and putting in place a human rights policy to
>>> address the priority issues.
Version: GnuPG v2

cc-humanrights3 mailing list
cc-humanrights3 at icann.org<mailto:cc-humanrights3 at icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cc-humanrights/attachments/20160211/4b9f82e4/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the cc-humanrights mailing list