[Wp4] Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected
Niels ten Oever
lists at digitaldissidents.org
Thu Aug 13 13:08:39 UTC 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi Greg and others,
Thanks for your welcoming words, happy to be here. I think a light
touch, high level statement mentioning the UDHR, ICCPR and ICESR would
make most sense.
I mentioned the UDHR and ICCPR because I mostly refer to first
generation human rights, but I agree that including second generation
human rights is relevant.
Third generation human rights are often seen as aspirational soft-law,
so I would be hesitant to include them.
Are these criteria / categories you can work with? The body of human
rights law has been pretty narrowly defined.
I also don't think that would actually be an expansion of ICANNs
commitment because in article 4 of ICANNs articles of incorporation
already states:
[quote[
4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet
community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with
relevant principles of international law and applicable international
conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and
consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and
transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in
Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall
cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organizations.
[/quote]
This specification in the bylaws therefore doesn't entail an expansion
of commitments, therefore I don't think we would need to design a
stress test for this.
I think we can use the UN Guiding Principles and the Global Compact
for designing the actual implementation in WS2, but I would say we
shouldn't discuss the implementation in this part of the process.
Happy to discuss.
Best,
Niels
On 08/12/2015 05:02 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Niels,
>
> First, welcome to the CCWG on Enhancing ICANN's Accountability. I
> suppose it's never to late to join in. I look forward to your
> contributions on a wide variety of issues. My responses to your
> email are inline below.
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Niels ten Oever
> <lists at digitaldissidents.org <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Thanks for this. I think many of these issues can be relatively
> simple resolved.
>
>
>> GS: I tend to agree; of course, our definitions of simple may be
>> somewhat different....
>
>
>
> Underlying documents to human rights:
>
> - Universal Declaration of Human Rights - International Covenant
> on Civil and Political Rights
>
>
>> GS: This is one possible list, and it has the virtue of being
>> short and manageable.
>
>> We've discussed a number of other underlying documents on this
>> and other lists. I see that you mention two of them below: the
>> UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights , and the
>> ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on
>> Business and Human Rights . I understand that these are less
>> foundational and more implementation-oriented than the first two
>> documents you mention, but from the point of considering what we
>> are doing, these are (or rather, could be, if we adopt them)
>> underlying documents. The Cisco report you cite also mentions
>> "eight Core Labor Conventions developed by the International
>> Labor Organization (ILO), and the United Nations Global
>> Compact."
>
>> The AGB mentions the following as examples of "international law"
>> (though not specifically as examples of human rights laws):
>
>> - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
>
>> - The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
>> (ICCPR)
>
>> - The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
>> Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
>
>> - The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
>> of Racial Discrimination
>
>> - Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women
>
>> - The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural
>> Rights
>
>> - The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or
>> Degrading Treatment or Punishment
>
>> - The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights
>> of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families
>
>> - Slavery Convention
>
>> - Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
>> Genocide
>
>> - Convention on the Rights of the Child
>
>
> I honestly don't know which if any of these have relevance to
> fundamental human rights and ICANN's mission. I suppose we could
> wait until Workstream 2 to determine which if any of these should
> be explicitly seen as helping to define the Human Rights to which
> ICANN is committing.
>
>
>
>
>
> These have been agreed upon by practically all states and are
> inherent part of the body of international law. I don't think we
> would need to re-discuss their validity, universality or
> applicability here.
>
> I also don't think that a detailed discussion of the actual
> implementation of this work needs to be discussed here. Detailed
> implementation of policy does not belong in the bylaws.
>
>
>> GS: I agree with your second sentence but not your first. I
>> don't think anyone has suggested that detailed implementation of
>> policy belongs /in/ the Bylaws. But the Bylaws are the tip of
>> the iceberg. We do need reasonably detailed discussion to come
>> to a common understanding of what ICANN is committing to and
>> what the results and consequences of that commitment are. ICANN
>> does not adopt or amend bylaws without relatively detailed
>> rationales and underlying work. This should and must be the same
>> for this, especially since it is being adopted as a "Core
>> Value."
>
>
>
> If you want to read more about it, I think the reports that
> Article19 produced for the CCWP on ICANNs Corporate and Social
> Responsibility to Respect Human Rights could be a good starter.
> [0] As well as of course the UN Guiding Principles for Business
> and Human Rights [1] and the ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the
> UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights [2].
>
> This is not something that we are reinventing here, but a practice
> that many companies have already adopted, look for instance at
> Cisco [3][4].
>
>
>> 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.)
>
>> Greg
>
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
>
> [0] tinyurl.com/cchumanrights <http://tinyurl.com/cchumanrights>
> [1] http://business-humanrights.org/en/un-guiding-principles [2]
> http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/eu-sector-guidance/EC-Guides/ICT/EC-Guide_ICT.
pd
>
>
>
f
> <http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/eu-sector-guidance/EC-Guides/ICT/EC-Guide_ICT
.pdf>
>
>
>
[3]
> http://csr.cisco.com/cdnorigin/media/documents/Human-Rights_1299738057
81
>
>
>
330000.pdf
> <http://csr.cisco.com/cdnorigin/media/documents/Human-Rights_129973805
781330000.pdf>
>
>
>
[4] http://www.cisco.com/assets/csr/pdf/CSR_Report_2014.pdf
>
>
> On 08/06/2015 11:35 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>> In terms of next steps, here is a list I put in an email about a
>> week ago, slightly adapted for the current context.
>
>> * study/analysis/discussion of the underlying documents
>> (treaties, conventions, guidelines, standards, etc.) (which in
>> turn requires determining which documents are relevant -- there
>> have been several helpful suggestions but that can't
>> automatically be taken as exhaustive or on-target), o
>> understanding the rights put forth in these documents ( and
>> any other rights put forth as human rights in the WG) , o
>> understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact
>> "human rights", o understanding how these rights may interact
>> and be balanced amongst themselves,
>
>> * understanding how these rights relate to and interact with
>> ICANN's mission and activities, o understanding how these rights
>> interact with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN
>> (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions
>> and how these interactions would take place and be resolved in
>> the ICANN framework), o understanding how these rights interact
>> with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and
>> local laws and regulations (some of which embody, in differing
>> fashions and degrees, relevant international treaties and
>> conventions) o how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's
>> Corporate Social Responsibility and what efforts have been made
>> or need to be made in that regard , * find out how other
>> organizations similar to ICANN (e.g., I* organizations) have
>> dealt with these issues, * determining which Bylaws amendment
>> is the most appropriate outcome relating to this issue (and
>> noting that various proposals have been floated in recent weeks),
>> * understanding the interaction between such an amendment and
>> other B ylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other
>> normative and operative ICANN documents, * determining what
>> efforts may need to take place and what groups may need to be
>> formed as a result of a Bylaw amendment (including without
>> limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or
>> Cross-Community Working Groups ) , * understanding and
>> integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN
>> (GAC WG, "Working Party"), * what an "impact analysis" would
>> entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what
>> scope, what triggers, etc.), * whether there are other "impact
>> analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which
>> are already in place, * what the result, effects and consequences
>> (intentional and unintentional) of various impact analysis
>> outcomes would be (either on present policy and implementation,
>> on future policy and implementation and on other ICANN
>> activities).
>
>> I think the last 4 points can be left to WS2. For the rest,
>> we'll need to balance work in WS1 vs. WS2, but I think each
>> requires some work in WS1 to have a framework of understanding
>> the meaning and consequences of a Bylaws amendment, and to
>> determine the best way forward in WS1. A number of these could
>> (and probably should) generate (or be recast as) "Stress Tests."
>
>> This is very much a first draft (or 1.1, since I did revisit it
>> once), so further contributions and revisions are welcomed.
>
>> Greg
>
>
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Shatan
>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>>
> wrote:
>
>> Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to
>> this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page
>> <https://twitter.com/GregShatan>
>
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na
>> <mailto:el at lisse.na> <mailto:el at lisse.na <mailto:el at lisse.na>>>
>> wrote:
>
>> Avri,
>
>> same tactics as usual.
>
>> Not unexpected.
>
>
>> el
>
>> -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>
>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>>> Avri,
>>>
>>> You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look
>>> forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is
>>> no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which
>>> I believe will build a stronger consensus.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org> <mailto:avri at acm.org
>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you
>>> make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to
>>> regulate you speech.
>>>
>>> I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate
>>> and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom
>>> of expression.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>>> I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism
>>>> "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find
>>>> this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of
>>>> expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other
>>>> such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of
>>>> expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of
>>>> good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org> <mailto:avri at acm.org
>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> <mailto:avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>>>> Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights.
>>>> Please do not cheapen this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast
>>>> antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing
>>>> list Wp4 at icann.org <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>
>>>> <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org
> <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>>
>>> <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>
> <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>>>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing
>>>> list Wp4 at icann.org <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>
>>>> <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org
> <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
>>>
>>>
>>> --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>> software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing
>>> list Wp4 at icann.org <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>
>>> <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org
> <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing
>>> list Wp4 at icann.org <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>
>>> <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org
> <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
>
>> _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list
>> Wp4 at icann.org <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org> <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org
> <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
>
>
>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list
>> Wp4 at icann.org <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4 at icann.org <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
>
>
- --
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
Article 19
www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVzJbXAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpVOAH/R30JI46b0g4I/cGA5/E0lC4
MzVHzhE7t5AW33Tlx+v5bCDgaPHifwmD9fE5ubBbdKRZS6J7MIeBuEtNHzVc6m+b
UX4yPiiAS7K8zAXTu9UX2SuqbASZdIso2ESfpEEeMO5KQQVpT1tRnl7a1dCKl4yB
yddTR7+z8YXYfJbKso8Zvv9k/ET99/GC2gjz4Hn1EQujytl/dK4kHe40cmU5k7Ca
88JzvQ05LWWIJPJPMDBdArrRGog1/8/ceYUMCS3lQwxwv66g3oLMSHOHy4XzX7Ri
BovM99Qllf5eqFPVHyaT2XPHqxJCbQqosb70SbSZaZ2GAanqzB3nLl9yNNRirk4=
=NX02
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Wp4
mailing list