[Ws2-hr] Reminder - Re: draft e-mail to CCWG plenary

Tue Dec 27 14:08:59 UTC 2016

I'm going to follow the Ruggie framework,  here to express some ideas I
have regarding HR and FOI...or even, what we might say to ICANN and the
community: We may already have discussed or even thrown out some of these
concepts.

1) From bylaw to Culture: How is the ICANN culture, it's actions and
decisions going to be seen to be adhering to principles of the FOI? From
Board level to Staff.

Similarly, the SO s .... how is the PDP process to adhere to these
principles.

Is there a separate FOI needed between the GAC and the ICANN board?
What happens if the board, agrees to a HRIA on GAC advice...What access or
pathway does the board have to address this with the GAC?

HRIA on  PDP processes and operations within ICANN, ensures a transition
from Reactive to Proactive HR .
It is a means of evaluating and addressing human rights risks associated
with and consistent with its status as a not for profit organisation and
should contribute to an evaluation of the severity of risk to the community
at large and ICANN's operations. The community in concert with ICANN,
therefore uses an FOI with which to leverage it's determination to respect
human rights as much as it's other core interests.

Accountability
The HR FOI and the use of HRIA at PDP and across the ICANN operations is
meant: to provide greater transparency in managing human rights risks and
ultimately, any risk of capture from Gov, group or state, ancient to the
future.

ICANN public meetings can be used as a discussion forum and be a channel
for internet users whose HR are at risk with interpretation within the
context of ICANN operations without impacting on its mission or scope but
ensures meaningful discussion of Emerging HR issues across all stakeholders.

rd

On Dec 26, 2016 8:08 AM, "Niels ten Oever" <lists at nielstenoever.net> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> A small reminder to send comments and suggestions on this in the coming
> two days, so we have time to address them and send the mail to the
> plenary before 2017.
>
> All the best,
>
> Niels
>
> On 12/22/2016 01:46 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As promised, please find my draft e-mail to the CCWG plenary, as a
> > follow-up to our most recent call, underneath.
> >
> > It would be great if we could discuss the document on this list, but if
> > you have concrete edits would you be so kind to put them on this Google
> > Doc in suggest mode?
> >
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/16obX_TdZ8zkhX1BsTqPg0NjwTdhd9n0MBij
> ZQeF2das/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Niels
> >
> >
> > Dear CCWG Plenary,
> >
> > We hope this e-mail finds you all very well. As you all know we shared
> > with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw.
> > After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us
> > to have a close look at our mandate and found out that there are
> > different ways of interpreting this.
> >
> > That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where
> > we should go next.
> >
> > In a bit more detail:
> >
> > Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:
> >
> > The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are:
> > • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw.
> > • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other
> > instruments should be used
> > by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Bylaw.
> > • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to
> > develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights.
> > • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted
> > to ensure broad
> > multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent with ICANN’s
> > existing processes and protocols.
> > • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s
> > consideration of advice given by the GAC.
> > • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s
> > operations are carried out
> >
> > Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads:
> >
> > 18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN
> > Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the
> > CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of
> > Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following
> > as it elaborates on the language to be used:
> > • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments
> > should be used by
> > ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human Rights Bylaw.
> > • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to
> > develop or enhance in
> > order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights.
> > • Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how
> > these new
> > frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad
> > multistakeholder involvement
> > in the process.
> > • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on
> > ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory
> > Committee (GAC).
> > • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations
> > are carried out.
> > • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will
> > interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.
> >
> > In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of
> > Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be
> > interpreted, and we did not focus on implementation, even though of
> > course we considered the potential consequences this might have.
> >
> > The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:
> >
> > 1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration of the
> plenary.
> > 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential
> > amendments to give more guidance to the considerations mentioned above.
> > 3. We will need to produce a new document with examples and
> > recommendations on what potential next steps could be
> > 4. We need to do a test on specific cases to see whether the FoI
> suffices.
> >
> > We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this lead
> > us into quite detailed discussions on how and where Human Rights Impact
> > Assessments could be integrated in PDPs and ICANN operations. In these
> > discussions it felt that we we're going in too much detail, and stepping
> > outside of the mandate of our Subgroup.
> >
> > Another option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1 and 3)
> > to issue a high-level recommendation for the chartering of a new CCWG on
> > Human Rights to specifically work on the steps of implementation, and
> > advise different SO's and AC's on how they could implement this in their
> > process, as well as discussing measures for ICANN the corporation.
> >
> > These are all options that we would like to bring in front of the
> > plenary, and we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and
> > potential other options.
> >
> > The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a vitalizing festive season and
> > we're greatly looking forward to complete our work in Workstream 2 with
> > you all in 2017.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > The CCWG Human Rights Subgroup
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
>
> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>                    678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-hr mailing list
> Ws2-hr at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20161227/c441c676/attachment.html>