[Wp4] Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected

[Stephanie Perrin]

I agree with Greg that the focus is on policy development and subsequent 
implementation.  I agree with Niels (and many in the thread before him) 
that not all of the dissection of what adherance means needs to be done 
in WS1.  I think this group will bog down forever if we try to parse 
that list of covenants and figure out which apply to ICANN's policy 
role, particularly given that tricky grey area of content control which 
we must not step over.  SO my bottom line is, can we agree to find 
language that refers to the UDHR and the ICCPR as it applies to ICANN's 
limited mandate and pass the rest of the work on to both the Working 
Party on Human Rights and to WS2?  My own view is that the work needs to 
be done, but not slow down the finalization of the proposal, and 
discussion of the various convenants promises to get really slow and 
difficult.  I suspect WS2 will have to get to the next level, but 
certainly not the bottom, of what it would mean for ICANN to respect 
human rights in its mandate.
Having said this, ICANN's responsibility to be a global institution with 
fair and equitable access does impact certain of the convenants and we 
will inevitably get into what it means to be non-discriminatory when 
acting "in the public interest".
I thought Avri had already come up with a great formulation for the 
purposes of WS1.
cheers
Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-08-12 11:02, Greg Shatan wrote:
> ​GS: Clearly, we are not starting from scratch. However, I don't think 
> ICANN can be directly compared to a company like Cisco.  Cisco runs a 
> business; it doesn't make policy or set norms.  ICANN may have a 
> corporation with employees at its core (or arguably, not at the core), 
> but it is more than that -- it is a multistakeholder governance 
> ecosystem.  I may be wrong, but I expect that the primary concern 
> relating to ICANN and Human Rights relates to policy matters (and 
> resulting implementation matters) and not to how ICANN run itself as a 
> business (e.g., hiring, pay, benefits and other employee matters; 
> purchasing decisions; etc.). As such, we really are breaking new 
> ground here.  As mentioned in my bullet point list, it would be 
> interesting to know how other more comparable organizations have dealt 
> with Human Rights commitments (e.g., the I* organizations, 
> standard-setting NGO's, self-regulatory industry bodies, 
> multistakeholder organizations, etc.)