[Wp4] Draft high level wording on Human Rights - Invitation to comment

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

I was thinking in terms of ICANN to be held primarily accountable
for its own human rights performance, not so much for those entities
it interacts with.

But, the "just following orders" principle of looking away is not
acceptable to me.  At all.  The point is clearly that human rights
are universal and not defined by countries' laws.

el


On 2015-09-02 16:16, Paul Twomey wrote:
> Nigel
> 
> Let me put my own case - it is not one of being biased against the
> UN. I am not and the UN has got little to do with my concern.
> 
> My concern remains focused: the practical operational necessities
> of maintaining the IANA function which is the most important thing
> ICANN does.  At the core of the IANA function, ICANN has to deal
> with EVERY country code and generic top level domain operator.  If
> it does not, we do not have a global internet - or at least not
> one coordinated by ICANN. It is impossible for ICANN to be held
> accountable for the human rights performance of these operators
> who are required to act under their own countries laws - during my
> tenure as CEO even had to deal with situations where ccTLD
> operators were being shot at by forces linked to at least parts of
> governments were not been getting what they want.  So my concern
> is that the Ruggie Principles state that a company is accountable
> to
> 
> 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.
> 
> My concern with the Principles is this: the company needs to
> prevent human rights impacts of its contracting or business
> partners.  This if pushed on ICANN by actors (not just inside
> ICANN community) who are against the way a ccTLD is being operated
> (or even a gTLD which comes under national law) could result in
> either:
> 
> - ICANN getting involved in political and content issues in every
> country (completely contrary to its technical coordination role)
> and/or - If it does seek to promote human rights at the ccTLD
> level, many countries seeking an alternative to the single IANA
> function, and the breaking up of the present single global
> interoperable Internet.
> 
> Either one would be disastrous.
> 
> And it may fine for us to say "but ICANN does not set ccTLD
> policy" etc.  but wait for a political advocacy group to take this
> provision to a US or other court and the court may still say that
> ICANN is obligated.
> 
> Hence my suggestion that we be clear that human rights be limited
> only to ICANN's own ways of conducting its work within its
> mission.
> 
> I am supportive of the modified language in the draft.
> 
> Paul
[...]

-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/