[Wp4] New report on ICANN and Human Rights

[Paul Twomey]

Eberhard

The process does not seem to have changed much 
http://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation

:)

Paul

On 10/29/15 8:47 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I doubt that you will be helpful, since you still use the previous
> terminology, which indicates you are not familiar with current
> interpretation of policy...
>
> And, though ICANN apparently was an enabler of your successor,
> "recognizing" and/or "empowering" third parties is not the issue.
>
> Even if it should be.
>
> el
>
> On 2015-10-28 22:39 , Paul Twomey wrote:
>> HI Niels
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> I think the best I can do is ask for some time on Friday to
>> explain the practical steps involved in changes of tld operator
>> (especially a cctld operator) both through requests for
>> redelegation and also requests for changes in the zone file
>> through the IANA process.  Because it is several of these where I
>> see ICANN being practically engaged in recognizing end empowering
>> a related party which could be guilty of human rights abuse.
>>
>> As for the Ruggie Principles, let me point again to principle 13
>> and its commentary (and that of principle 19):
>>
>> 13.
>>
>> The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business
>>
>> enterprises:
>>
>> (a)
>>
>> Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts
>>
>> through their own activities, and address such impacts when they
>>
>> occur;
>>
>> (b)
>>
>> Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are
>>
>> *directly linked to their operations, products or services by
>> their *
>>
>> **
>>
>> *business relationships*, even if they have not contributed to
>> those
>>
>> impacts.
>>
>> (/Emphasis added - this is the nature of the IANA functions
>> relationship with ccTLDs) // /
>>
>>
>> Commentary
>>
>> Business enterprises may be involved with adverse human rights
>> impacts either
>>
>> through their own activities or as a result of their business
>> relationships with
>>
>> other parties.  Guiding Principle 19 elaborates further on the
>> implications for
>>
>> how business enterprises should address these situations.  For the
>> purpose of
>>
>> these Guiding Principles a business enterprise’s
>> “activities” are understood
>>
>> to include both actions and omissions; and its “business
>> relationships” are
>>
>> understood to include relationships with business partners,
>> entities in its
>>
>> value chain, and any other non-State or State entity directly
>> linked to its
>>
>> business operations, products or services
>>
>>   
>>
>>   
>>
>> Commentary on Principle 19
>>
>>   
>>
>> The more complex the situation and its implications for human
>> rights, the
>>
>> stronger is the case for the enterprise to draw on independent
>> expert advice
>>
>> in deciding how to respond.  */(ICANN is the body to make
>> decisions on tlds - there is not another expert body)/*
>>
>> If the business enterprise has leverage to prevent or mitigate the
>> adverse
>>
>> impact, it should exercise it.  And if it lacks leverage there may
>> be ways for
>>
>> the enterprise to increase it.  Leverage may be increased by, for
>> example,
>>
>> offering capacity-building or other incentives to the related
>> entity, or
>>
>> collaborating with other actors.  */(ICANN should not be asked to
>> put political leverage on a government - it will destroy its
>> apolitical role)/**//*
>>
>> *//*
>>
>> There are situations in which the enterprise lacks the leverage to
>> prevent
>>
>> or mitigate adverse impacts and is unable to increase its
>> leverage.  Here,
>>
>> the enterprise should consider ending the relationship, taking
>> into account
>>
>> credible assessments of potential adverse human rights impacts of
>> doing so.  *(ICANN cannot consider ending a relationship with a
>> cctld and still operate the IANA functions )***
>>
>> ** * ** *It seems to me that Ruggie Principles basically are
>> saying if another party in which you are in a business
>> relationship continues to breach human rights you should consider
>> ending the relationship.
>>
>> this is just what ICANN can NOT do with a ccTLD or even some TLD
>> operators if it is going to continue to be the protocol
>> coordinator of a single Interoperable Internet.
>>
>> But if it does not breach these relationships one can just see the
>> level of litigation from human rights and dissident groups which
>> could be brought against ICANN if it does adopt these principles
>> without amendment.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
> [...]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

-- 
Dr Paul Twomey
Managing Director
Argo P at cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp4/attachments/20151029/de80efac/attachment.html>