[Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?
Aikman-Scalese, Anne
AAikman at lrrc.com
Wed Sep 7 20:45:58 UTC 2016
Nigel, when you take the position that " ICANN MUST hold itself to the same standards as governments", do you mean ICANN the Empowered Community or ICANN the Board of Directors?
Are you saying that Human Rights policy (as opposed to applicable US law) is an exception to the ICANN MS bottom-up policy development process? Would this not conflict with what the By-Law on determining the Public Interest says? (I believe it says the Global Public Interest is determined through the bottom-up MS process.) My assumption has always been that the FOI itself, once recommended by CCWG-ACCT, would then be subject to public policy input from the GAC as well as comments from ALAC (and others) and then guidance from the GNSO in one of its newly-adopted expedited procedures, that is, either GNSO Policy Input, GNSO Policy Guidance, or GNSO Expedited PDP. I had also understood that the HR Working Party was participating in and seeking input to, for example, the Subsequent Procedures PDP.
Regarding the UDRP, there is likely some creative tension that could arise in policy advice provided to the Board. For example, GNSO, where contracted parties dominate and tend to form alliances with Non-Commercial interests in the realm of free speech and due process, might produce a majority in favor of eliminating default judgment in a UDRP proceeding. The claim would be that default judgment constitutes a lack of due process, though that has certainly never been true in the US judicial system and I don't believe it is true in Europe either. However, it is quite possible that the GAC and other entities, including individual governments or regional governments, might weigh in where consumer protection is involved. Top examples of course are fake pharmaceuticals, toys with lead paint, and other sales which involve the public safety or consumer financial fraud (all of which affect trust and confidence in the Internet). If an inability to obtain a default judgment as to these matters results in death and illness as products continue to be sold by persons who cannot be identified or held to default judgment OR in consumer financial fraud perpetrated by persons who cannot be identified or held to default judgment, you may definitely find governments weighing in since any lack of ability to enforce in private industry throws the burden and cost of preventing such activities on governments. (This is the reason, for example, that US corporations are required to name agents for service of process - so that enforcement can occur via the private sector. )
For the record, I support the creation of a Human Rights Objection to new gTLD applications. The award of a gTLD contract is the most proximate Business Relationship ICANN has within its scope and mission. Because ICANN is not supposed to be a content regulator, however, I would develop criteria applicable to this Objection and have the matter adjudicated in a different forum by an independent panel in the same manner as other Objection processes. I think this is where the FOI assumes its greatest importance. As you point out, any Human Rights evaluation applicable here would involve a "balancing act" by the panel with reference to ICANN's FOI for Human Rights. My view is that the very existence of such an Objection procedure would have a very significant deterrent effect on parties seeking to apply for new TLDs for either an overt or covert abusive purpose.
Are you saying that in applying the Ruggie principles, ICANN itself (Board or new gTLD Program Committee if it exists in next round) would be obligated to make a determination as to any potential adverse impact on Human Rights in the new gTLD application context? And to do so without policy guidance on that application from the GNSO, GAC , ALAC or other advisory entities?
I do understand why "applicable law" directly binds the ICANN Board, but it appears to me that internationally recognized Human Rights principles are (1) a matter of policy which (2) always involves a balancing act as you also note. In addition to respecting the MS policy development process, my concern here is that we not create a situation where the ICANN Board is unable to act because its obligations are not clear-cut.
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman at lrrc.com
_______________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 11:35 PM
To: ws2-hr at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?
Recognising it in the FoI is exactly the job of an FoI.
But we cannot use the MS model to reject the corpus of human rights.
For example, both freedom of expression and the right to property (inlcuding intellectual property) are human rights. (In the Councl of Europe states they are binding rights - Arts 10 and Art 1 Prot 1 ECHR
respectively)
They are QUALIFIED human rights. Which means they must be balanced.
As a private company, ICANN is not obliged to respect either right, under the applicable law.
But, through an MS process, and to provide credibility as a multistakeholder alternative to a multinational internet solution (to which Human Rights automatically would apply), ICANN voluntarily adopted the By Law, undertaking to respect Human Rights.
Now, faced with a conflict in policy, or in an adminstrative process, suppose that ICANN decideds (through a multistakeholder process in which the advocates of property are better organised that the advocates of free expression) ICANN produeces a policy which gives undue weight to property owners at the expense of free expression. Oh, think of an example -- a possible future revision of the UDRP.
ICANN MUST hold itself to the same standards as governents. It must conduct the exact same balancing exercise as Human Rights jurists do, when faced with an allegation of human rights infringments.
Most Human Rights cases are not allegations of torture, slavery or extrajudicial killing. They result from the exercise of executive power unfairly against one sector or another.
And having read the quoted section of the Ruggie Principles, I do not think this amounts to a redefinition of the common use of the term 'respect' in the context of the UDHR and ECHR that predates Ruggie.
On 07/09/16 02:17, Rudolph Daniel wrote:
> What Anne has expressed here is pretty close to my understanding of a
> workable pathway.
>
> 'Any Human Rights FOI that does not EXPLICITLY recognize the MS Model
> of policy development is inadequate.' end quote
>
> That is also my view currently.
>
> Is it not possible that the GAC or some other policy development
> process may, when viewed under the lens of a 'respect for for human
> rights' p d p, is rejected or modified to bring it in line with a concensus position?
> rd
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2016 7:18 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com
> <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks David. This is exactly why we cannot use the Ruggie
> definition of "respect". Again, it is difficult for me to see how
> Ruggie applies since those principles are developed in relation to a
> corporation that operates "top down" rather than "bottom up" and
> were not developed in relation to the unique MS policy development
> framework that applies to ICANN.____
>
> __ __
>
> The Ruggie definition of "respect" would require ICANN action in the
> context of evaluating and minimizing Human Rights adverse impact in
> _all its business relationships_. ____
>
> __ __
>
> ICANN's primary business relationships are registry contracts. This
> includes award and renewal of gTLD contracts (As a side note, and
> also noting my bias as an IP lawyer in favor of the protection of
> trademark and copyright, the UDRP and URS processes are not
> "business relationships" of ICANN. ) These are dispute resolution
> processes developed through a bottom-up MS approach - again a
> concept that is completely foreign to businesses for which Ruggie
> principles were developed. ____
>
> __ __
>
> So from my point of view, Ruggie is inapposite and we need to "start
> from scratch" so that the FOI being developed recognizes the
> existing ICANN MS Model and the existing policy development process
> and functions of policy advice coming from the GAC and ALAC and
> other entities in addition to the GNSO. This is definitely a
> "balancing act" of Core Values for the Community and the Board. Any
> Human Rights FOI that does not EXPLICITLY recognize the MS Model of
> policy development is inadequate. ____
>
> __ __
>
> I would therefore suggest a preamble to the FOI along the following
> lines:____
>
> __ __
>
> PREAMBLE TO HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK OF INTERPRETATION____
>
> __ __
>
> "WHEREAS the application of internationally-recognized Human Rights
> principles in the context of ICANN's mission and scope requires
> policy development processes within the ICANN Community and ____
>
> __ __
>
> WHEREAS, the application of these principles to ICANN's activities
> may require a balancing of ICANN's Core Values as outlined in the
> By-Laws at Subparagraph ____(c ) (REPEAT text previously referenced
> by Jorge Cancion and pasted below)____
>
> __ __
>
> NOW THEREFORE, the CCWG- ACCT recommends the following Framework of
> Interpretation in relation to the application of the new Human
> Rights By-Law adopted by the Board on ___________ (date) to ICANN's
> scope and mission."____
>
> __ __
>
> Separately, I personally believe a Human Rights Objection process
> may be appropriate, thereby taking ICANN itself out of the content
> regulation business in relation to gTLD applications and awards, but
> this of course would be a matter for policy development.____
>
> __ __
>
> Anne____
>
> __ __
>
> "(c) The Commitments and Core Values are intended to apply in the
> broadest____
>
> possible range of circumstances. The Commitments reflect
> ICANN's____
>
> fundamental compact with the global Internet community and are
> intended to____
>
> apply consistently and comprehensively to ICANN's activities. The
> specific____
>
> way in which Core Values are applied, individually and collectively,
> to any____
>
> given situation may depend on many factors that cannot be fully
> anticipated____
>
> or enumerated. Situations may arise in which perfect fidelity to all
> Core____
>
> Values simultaneously is not possible. Accordingly, in any situation
> where____
>
> one Core Value must be balanced with another, potentially competing
> Core____
>
> Value, the result of the balancing must serve a policy developed
> through the____
>
> bottom-up multistakeholder process or otherwise best serve ICANN's
> Mission."____
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*____
>
> Of Counsel____
>
> 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> office____
>
> 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> fax____
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>____
>
> _________________________________
>
> ____
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP____
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700____
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611____
>
> lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>____
>
> __ __
>
> *From:*ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *McAuley, David
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 3:34 PM
> *To:* Dr. Tatiana Tropina; ws2-hr at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?____
>
> __ __
>
> Interesting discussion among thoughtful folks, in which I find
> myself with Greg and Tanya. ____
>
> __ __
>
> Work Stream One, in my opinion/recollection, never intended for the
> FoI team to throw open the doors and see what we could come up with.
> I recall a great deal of concern over the notion of an expansive HR
> commitment and don't think we would have reached closure if the HR
> provision would have been a broad one. I think Tanya captured that
> correctly. ____
>
> __ __
>
> As I read it, the bylaw that we are interpreting creates the FoI
> sub-team 'charter' (Section 27.2) as an effort containing
> "limitations" rather than an invitation to expand the bylaw (Article
> 1.2(b)(viii) begins "Subject to the limitations set forth in Section
> 27.2 ...").____
>
> __ __
>
> Whatever FoI we come up with must be approved by the full CCWG, will
> be sent through the COs, and is subject to board approval - some of
> the same drivers that helped shape the focus of the Bylaw we came up
> with in Section 1.2(b)(viii). And the FoI must be consistent with a
> bylaw that requires respect for HR within the scope of ICANN's
> narrow and unique mission. ____
>
> __ __
>
> David ____
>
> __ __
>
> David McAuley____
>
> International Policy Manager____
>
> Verisign Inc.____
>
> 703-948-4154 <tel:703-948-4154>____
>
> __ __
>
> *From:*ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Dr. Tatiana Tropina
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:38 PM
> *To:* ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?____
>
> __ __
>
> Dear Daniel,
>
> I would rather disagree with broadening the view that much.
>
> First of all, there are other documents from CCWG than define the
> tasks of this group, than only the bylaw text. In particular, Annex
> 06 (p. 2) of the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on
> Work Stream 1 Recommendations report, that was approved, says:
>
> "Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities:
> - Develop an _FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw_" (underlined by me).
>
> The drafters of the CCWG report could have been of course more
> specific and put the wording "FoI for the HR Bylaw" everywhere, but
> I think it actually never dawned on them that there will be a
> discussion on broadening the scope of the FoI that much. At least
> the wording of the Annex 6 (and Annex 12 about WS2) indicates that
> it's a FoI for bylaw and not for the whole human rights impact
> assessment (HRIA) within ICANN.
>
> Secondly, even a mere interpretation of the bylaw will require a lot
> of analysis of what you refer to, but extending the work of this
> group to the whole HRIA is outside of our mandate I think. There was
> a report of the Cross-community working party for human rights
> (which is not the part of the work of this CCWG) prepared for the
> ICANN meeting in Dublin that actually showed that the full HRIA,
> though might be a desirable option, is a time- and
> resources-consuming process and might be recommended only in a
> long-term. We can of course consider recommending ICANN to carry out
> a HRIA as a part of the FoI, why not, but doing the whole assessment
> on our own, in this group, rather looks like an impossible task -
> both in terms of resources and mandate.
>
> I think the work of this group should definitely focus on the bylaw
> interpretation at the moment, because we do have to agree on what
> the bylaw means first before we will make any further recommendations.
>
> warm regards
> Tatiana ____
>
> __ __
>
> On 06/09/16 20:36, Daniel Appelman wrote:____
>
> I would take a broader view than the one Greg has just
> suggested. Nowhere in the Bylaw and the conditions upon which
> it would become effective does it say that the WS2 team's
> activities should be restricted to footnoting the Bylaw or
> prohibited from making recommendations on human rights-related
> policies. In fact, our mandate is to develop and recommend a
> "framework of interpretation for human rights". This is much
> broader than providing "a framework of interpretation for the
> Bylaw". We will not be doing our job unless we consider what
> human rights are impacted by ICANN and its relationships with
> third parties and then develop recommendations as to the scope
> of ICANN's obligations under the Bylaw to respect those human
> rights in engaging in those relationships.____
>
> ____
>
> Dan____
>
> ____
>
> *Daniel Appelman*____
>
> Partner____
>
> *Montgomery & Hansen, LLP*____
>
> 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 250____
>
> Menlo Park, CA 94025____
>
> *650.331.7014 <tel:650.331.7014> (direct)*____
>
> 650-245-8361 <tel:650-245-8361> (mobile)____
>
> 650.331.7000 <tel:650.331.7000> (main)____
>
> 650.331.7001 <tel:650.331.7001> (fax)____
>
> *www.mh-llp.com* <http://www.mh-llp.com/>____
>
> ____
>
> New Logo - email ver____
>
> ____
>
> This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail, and
> destroy all copies of the original message. To ensure
> compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
> that any tax advice contained in this communication, unless
> expressly stated otherwise, was not intended or written to be
> used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
> tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
> promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> tax-related matter(s) addressed herein.____
>
> ____
>
> ____
>
> *From:*ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 11:13 AM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> *Cc:* ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human
> rights?____
>
> ____
>
> Whatever we do, we can't create gTLD policy. We can (and indeed
> must) provide guidance in how the Bylaw should be interpreted by
> those engaged in gTLD policy development. But the policy
> development process cannot take place here.____
>
> ____
>
> We also should not be creating procedural mechanisms for when a
> Human Rights impact evaluation is triggered. Nor should we even
> be the one to create or mandate a human rights impact
> evaluation. Again, we should provide guidance in how the Bylaw
> should be interpreted by those who might consider whether to
> create such mechanisms or evaluations, and those who create
> them.____
>
> ____
>
> We need to stick to our mandate, which is to provide a Framework
> of Interpretation for the Bylaw. To my mind, this essentially
> means "annotating" the Bylaw, with what amount to a series of
> footnotes, so that the language used will be used consistently
> by groups that come after this one.____
>
>
> Greg____
>
> ____
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> <AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:____
>
> Protection of registrant data is certainly important. This was
> studied for quite a long time by the Expert Working Group on
> WhoIs and is now the subject of a GNSO Policy Development
> Process. As I understand it, the new framework for Directory
> Registry Services essentially proposes a "need to know"
> threshold test. I think it would be naïve for this Workstream 2
> group to hold that Human Rights (in the form of privacy and
> freedom of expression) were not considered by the EWG or won't
> be considered in the final outcome of the PDP. In fact, the
> activities of these groups with respect to registrant data have
> sought to balance two clearly listed Human Rights guidelines in
> the UDRP - that is the privacy right and the rights of authors
> (i.e. intellectual property rights).____
>
> ____
>
> I don't think the work done in the FOI for Workstream 2 Human
> Rights is supposed to trump the policy work of the GNSO or the
> public policy advice of the GAC or the advice of the ALAC.
> Still not sure, however, how this Framework of Interpretation
> for Human Rights can be considered anything other than new gTLD
> policy when applied to ICANN's new gTLD activities, including,
> but not limited to,____
>
> ____
>
> 1.Award of registry contracts____
>
> 2.Contractual provisions required in registry (and by
> implication registrar) contracts.____
>
> 3.Adjudication of Requests for Reconsideration____
>
> 4.Adjudication of complaints filed with ICANN with respect to
> Spec 11 Public Interest Commitments____
>
> 5.Possible revocation of gTLD contract awards in relation to
> registry operators using TLDs for Human Rights abuse purposes.
> ____
>
> Separately, regarding, for example, UDRP and URS proceedings,
> these are not actually activities of ICANN. These are dispute
> resolution mechanisms that take place outside ICANN's operations
> and are less directly implicated in the Human Rights framework
> than the activities listed in 1 through 5 above. However,
> these are mechanisms developed through the ICANN Policy
> Development Process.____
>
> ____
>
> As a practical matter, it would seem that the best this WS2 team
> can do is establish a procedural mechanism for determining when
> a Human Rights Impact review is triggered and a process where
> the Community conducts such a Human Rights Impact review. This
> necessarily would have to correlate with Policy Development. In
> the end, the various policy advisory groups may well disagree as
> they provide advice to the Board and it is the Board which makes
> the final decision, even in the new Empowered Community model.
> The Board receives advice from many different sources. One such
> source is the European Commission, whose advice is one reason
> this new By-Law exists and one reason this group exists in
> WS2. ____
>
> ____
>
> The only practical way forward from my point of view is for this
> group to define criteria as to when a Human Rights Impact
> evaluation is triggered and how it should be conducted within
> policy-making activities already going on in the Community.
> This would include the five items listed above if indeed we are
> to use such general language as is proposed in the FOI in
> relation to "respect human rights" in a manner which requires
> ICANN to take action to eliminate or reduce adverse Human Rights
> impact in the business relationships and activities with which
> it is involved.____
>
> ____
>
> I can compare all this to the process in the U.S. which requires
> an Environmental Impact Statement as to various business
> activities. The criteria for a Human Rights Impact Statement
> might be a starting point. However, in developing such a Human
> Rights Impact evaluation, and as agreed in WS1, we cannot focus
> on just one or two or three of the relevant Human Rights. None
> of the Human Rights documents we refer to rank these rights in
> order of priority as far as I know. The rights of authors and
> indigenous peoples I represent are just as important as the
> rights of freedom of expression and privacy. In fact, author's
> rights (including the copyright rights which give the authors
> the exclusive right to make changes to their own works) may be
> equally important to condemning oppressive governmental action
> or exploitation of native culture for corporate or personal
> gain. (Why would registrant information be protected for
> sellers of fake Navajo jewelry?)____
>
> ____
>
> Again, by way of SOI disclosure, I represent the Pascua Yaqui
> Tribe and my firm represents the Navajo Nation for certain
> intellectual property matters. (We currently have no
> instructions from either with respect to participation in ICANN
> so my views are my own.) In ICANN's activities, it appears to
> me that a Human Rights Impact analysis is ALWAYS a question of
> balancing various Human Rights.____
>
> Anne____
>
> ____
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*____
>
> Of Counsel____
>
> 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> office____
>
> 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> fax____
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>____
>
> _________________________________
>
> ____
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP____
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700____
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611____
>
> lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>____
>
> ____
>
> *From:*ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Tijani BEN JEMAA
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 04, 2016 11:13 AM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig____
>
>
> *Cc:* ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human
> rights?____
>
> ____
>
> Dear all,____
>
> I agree with Paul that among the main questions for us to come
> up with a Frame of Interpretation of the Human Rights in the
> ICANN mission would be:____
>
> * What substance we see in the phrase human rights
> inside ICANN Mission?____
> * When, if ever, ICANN should give that substance (whatever it
> may be) effect?____
>
> I can't say they are the only meaningful questions since there
> will be subsequent questions. But let's start with the first
> question: I think that to address it, we may begin by giving
> practical easy cases.____
>
> The protection of the registrant data is one of the most obvious
> case of human right that falls in the ICANN mission. This may
> also affect the ICANN contract with registries/registrars____
>
> ____
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------____
>
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*____
>
> Executive Director____
>
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)____
>
> Phone: +216 98 330 114 <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>____
>
> +216 52 385 114 <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>____
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------____
>
> ____
>
> ____
>
> Le 4 sept. 2016 à 18:24, Paul Rosenzweig
> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> a écrit
> :____
>
> ____
>
> Dear Farzaneh____
>
> ____
>
> Of course your questions are meaningful. Indeed, the ONLY
> two meaningful questions in this discussion are a) what
> substance we see in the phrase human rights? And b) When, if
> ever, ICANN should give that substance (whatever it may be)
> effect?____
>
> ____
>
> Your questions clearly go to the later of these two issues.
> Members of the group may disagree on the answers we reach,
> but you're asking questions that have real meaning -
> whatever anyone may say to the contrary.____
>
> ____
>
> Paul____
>
> ____
>
> Paul Rosenzweig____
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>____
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>____
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>____
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>____
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>____
>
> My PGP Key:
> http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
>
> <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/>____
>
> ____
>
> *From:*ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *farzaneh badii
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 4, 2016 11:56 AM
> *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:ws2-hr at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human
> rights?____
>
> ____
>
> Calling something "not meaningful" is very easy. But it does
> not devalue its merits, fortunately. Please provide a
> rationale for why the questions are not meaningful. I don't
> have to consult with the co-chairs to discuss the questions
> here. If the group feels that it is unnecessary to discuss
> these questions they can simply not respond, if they feel we
> should re-formulate them, then we can. ____
>
> ____
>
> The questions are to clarify what we mean by ICANN should
> not become a content regulator. The discussions that can
> arise responding to the question and sub-questions which I
> have posted can lead us towards a more tangible
> understanding of what we mean when we say ICANN should not
> become a content regulator and should not go out of its
> scope and mission when upholding human rights. ____
>
> ____
>
> Best____
>
> ____
>
> Farzaneh ____
>
> ____
>
> On 4 September 2016 at 17:34, Kavouss Arasteh
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:____
>
> Dear All,____
>
> I do not understand the meaning and purpose of these
> questions.____
>
> Perhaps the author of the questions could consult other
> two co chairs and come up with meaningfull text.____
>
> We can not send out these questions at all____
>
> Reagrds____
>
> Kavouss ____
>
> ____
>
> 2016-09-04 14:25 GMT+02:00 farzaneh badii
> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
> <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>:____
>
> Hi all, ____
>
> ____
>
> Sorry for sending out the questions late. I wanted
> to provide a gist of what we discussed during our
> call and then provide the questions but
> unfortunately, we still do not have the recording.
> Below are some questions for the group to
> discuss:____
>
> ____
>
> ____
>
> Considering ICANN's scope and mission, when should
> ICANN uphold human rights?____
>
> ____
>
> - In its consideration to enter into contracts with
> registries and registrars? (for example, when they
> are considering a new gTLD application) ____
>
> ____
>
> - During the contractual relationship with the
> registries and the registrars by obligating the
> registries and registrars to enforce human
> rights?____
>
> ____
>
> ____
>
> ____
>
> ____
>
> ____
>
> Best ____
>
> ____
>
> ____
>
> -- ____
>
> Farzaneh____
>
> ____
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-hr mailing list
> Ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr>____
>
> ____
>
>
>
> ____
>
> ____
>
> -- ____
>
> Farzaneh ____
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-hr mailing list
> Ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr>____
>
> ____
>
> ____
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use
> of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the
> reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended
> recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
> the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying
> of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us
> immediately by replying to the sender. The information
> transmitted in this message and any attachments may be
> privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential
> use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic
> Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ____
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-hr mailing list
> Ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr>____
>
> ____
>
>
>
> ____
>
> ___________________________________________________
>
> Ws2-hr mailing list____
>
> Ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org>____
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr>____
>
> __ __
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of
> the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader
> of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or
> the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or
> attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that
> any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any
> attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
> the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-hr mailing list
> Ws2-hr at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-hr mailing list
> Ws2-hr at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
>
_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
Ws2-hr at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
More information about the Ws2-hr
mailing list