[Wp4] New report on ICANN and Human Rights

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Paul,

my understanding is that they are busy implementing...

(resent from correct sender address :-)-O)

el

--
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s

On 28 Oct 2015, 23:23 +0100, Paul Twomey <paul.twomey at argopacific.com>,
wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp4/attachments/20151029/fa83841e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4218 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp4/attachments/20151029/fa83841e/smime.p7s>