[Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?

[John Curran]

On Sep 5, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net> wrote:
> ...
> 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.

Interesting predicament.  If one imagines the potential for an update to one of 
the IANA registries that in turn poses an impact to human rights – i.e. following 
the specific guidance from the appropriate community that is contracting with 
ICANN/PTI for IANA services would result in an HR impact, then the above 
proposed responsibility (to prevent or mitigate...) would suggest that ICANN 
should to do otherwise.

Note that the event of ICANN/PTI acting contrary to the clear direction of one of 
the respective communities (names, numbers, protocols) with regard to IANA 
registry updates could easily precipitate a crisis that results in the end of ICANN, 
and thus should probably be avoided...

ICANN (including PTI) needs to place the highest priority upon fidelity to the 
outcomes of the multi-stakeholder process, since its existence is predicated 
(particularly in a post-NTIA contract environment) upon the presupposition 
of the validity of that process.  This is also the reason why I noted that there
is a significant difference between application of HR principles within the multi-
stakeholder policy development process when compared to later on during the
policy implementation phases.

/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.  Feel free to use, share, or discard as desired.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20160905/0ebee1a6/attachment.html>