[Ws2-hr] Report to CCWG

Wed Oct 19 18:13:37 UTC 2016

Thanks Niels.  By saying the group has reached some sort of consensus that
certain Ruggie principals may apply, you are already including overviews of
the various views of the members of the group.  I, for one, still have no
idea if any of the Ruggie principals would apply since I do not know whether
or not they are already subsumed by or preempted by California State law.  I
hope your summary will be complete enough to include that at least one
person in the group believes we out to start with what applicable law is
already in place before we begin opining on whether or not third party
sources should govern ICANN behavior, since the bylaw makes it clear that
all of our work should end up with a product that is within applicable law.
We simply have no hope at hitting the target if we insist on having blinders
on.  Not telling the Plenary CCWG that we have decided to put on blinders is
an important thing for them to know so that they can either tell us to take
off the blinders and look first at what human rights requirements already
exist under applicable law or they can consent to us trying to put the
puzzle together in the dark.  

As far as my suggestions for next steps, they remain the same as the first
(among many) times I have brought up this subject.  Ask ICANN Legal what
Human Rights laws already apply to the organization.  They have been
operating in California for some time now and they already know the answer
to this question.  

Best,
Paul

Paul D. McGrady, Jr.
policy at paulmcgrady.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 11:24 AM
To: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>; ws2-hr at icann.org
Cc: thomas at rickert.net
Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Report to CCWG

Hi Paul,

I am a bit hesitant to add an overview of different views of members of the
group, but I will try.

In the meantime I would still be very interested to hear from you how you
think we could approach this, with the limited resources of our group and in
conjunction with the current understanding of applicable law we're working
on.

Best,

Niels

On 10/19/2016 05:31 PM, Paul McGrady wrote:
> Thanks Niels.  I would like for your summary to include notice that I 
> have consistently called for us to evaluate what human rights 
> principles already apply to ICANN as a result of applicable California 
> law in order to get a baseline to begin a gap analysis, but that the 
> request has not been acted upon by the group.  Thanks.
> 
> Best,
> Paul
> 
> 
> Paul D. McGrady, Jr.
> policy at paulmcgrady.com
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org] On 
> Behalf Of Niels ten Oever
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:24 AM
> To: ws2-hr at icann.org
> Subject: [Ws2-hr] Report to CCWG
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I hope this email finds you well. Coming Friday is the deadline for me 
> to report to the CCWG Plenary on the progress of our Subgroup. I 
> drafted the text underneath. Your input is more than welcome before 
> Friday, when I will submit it to the CCWG co-chairs.
> 
> All your input is of course very much appreciated.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Niels
> 
> 1. Executive Summary
> The CCWG WS2 Human Rights Subgroup has documented the historical 
> context of the discussions on ICANNs human rights bylaw, which 
> together with the CCWG report (especially Annex 6 and 12) form it's 
> scope of discussion, with a Framework of Interpretation of the Human
Rights Bylaw as intended output.
> The subgroup is currently preparing a Framework of Interpretation 
> which in due time will be presented to the CCWG plenary for discussion.
> 
> 2. Description of the Issue
> 2.1 Current State of Play
> The CCWG WS2 Human Rights Subgroup started of with providing an 
> overview of the discussions and agreements as they were made during 
> CCWG Workstream 1 [0]. Subsequently the Subgroup has analyzed the UN 
> Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), and their 
> relevance and applicability for ICANN. While there was consensus that 
> some principles were relevant for the development for a Framework of 
> Interpretation (such as 13a and 15a), it was also recognized that the 
> UNGPs have not been designed with an organization like ICANN in mind. 
> Therefore a drafting team is currently iteratively designing a draft 
> Framework of Interpretation which is being discussed in weekly calls. 
> It is expected, that at this rate, the subgroup will be able to achieve
the set milestones.
> 
> 2.2 Supplemental Report
> See [0]
> 
> 3 Recommendation
> 3.1 Requirements for Recommendation
> We haven't reached consensus on a recommendation yet.
> 
> 3.2 Rationale for Recommendation
> We haven't reached consensus on a recommendation yet.
> 
> [0]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rwpw9aSAqboRO2_rNkjMVJPOmYwmdr5B1_
> M_aNMo
> Zb4/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> --
> 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
> 

--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9