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

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Avri.

I am wondering about the approach.

Looking at processes before establishing the fundamentals (of what
we are talking about) is one of the reasons that got us (CCWG
Accountability) into this mess.

I am currently in transit and too preoccopied to think about this
deeply, bu will, after my return, next week.


greetings, el


On 2015-08-13 07:58 , Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I think you mention that the Ruggies principles are indeed
> generic.  WS2 would be when we figured out how they applied to
> ICANN.
> 
> You also quote the most essential parts:
> 
> 
>     (a) A policy commitment to meet their responsibility to
>     respect human rights;
>     (b) A human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent,
>     mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on
>     human rights;
>     (c) Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human
>     rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute.
> 
> 
> Nothing it these 3 should be terribly difficult to commit to.  But in
> the WS1 we are only looking to half of the first commitment - 'to
> respect human rights' and in fact limiting it to our mission and
> operations.  How we do that is the longer task.
> 
> While it is true that I initially recommended we commit to the
> Ruggie Principles in the Bylaws, I realized that this was too
> heavy a lift for ICANN at this point and am thus recommending we
> only take the first step - a commitment to respect Human Rights in
> maintaining the openness of the Internet, the commitment we have
> yet to make in replacing NTIA as oversight, and art of our
> accountability requirements fro NTIA.
> 
> Much of the discussion you have initiated talks about new
> commitments you indicate we might have to take on, and expansive
> requirement.  I am only talking about meeting the current
> commitment that is ours by virtue of US Gov't oversight.
> 
> I would very much like for us to understand how Ruggie applies to
> the special condition of ICANN as a NGO that acts like a business,
> but that is the longer task, one I still think is inappropriate
> for WS1.  I know you insist on taking us down this road, but I do
> believe you are confusing a very simple issue.
> 
> avri
> 
[...]

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4198 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp4/attachments/20150813/d6e56d76/smime.p7s>