[Ws2-hr] FW: [Acct-Staff] Fwd: Re: When should ICANN uphold human rights?
Karen Mulberry
karen.mulberry at icann.org
Thu Sep 8 04:32:04 UTC 2016
Please see the note from Seun Ojedeji below.
Karen Mulberry
Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives
ICANN
From: <acct-staff-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji
<seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:37 PM
To: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff at icann.org>
Subject: [Acct-Staff] Fwd: Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human
rights?
Hello Staff,
Could you kindly help send this to the HR list. Kindly also change my status
to participant as I like to be able to post to the list occasionally.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
Date: 7 Sep 2016 07:59
Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?
To: "Rudolph Daniel" <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>
Cc: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>, <ws2-hr at icann.org>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 2:17 AM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com> 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
>
> SO: Wouldn't it then be accurate to say the only application of HR within
> ICANN would be to ensure there is adequate accountability mechanism in place
> within ICANN processes (including policy implementation). In order words, HR
> within ICANN is not a set of separate terms to be respected but "respect of
> HR" would be achieved indirectly through adequately following other rules and
> procedures guiding various processes within ICANN.
>
> Regards
>> 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> wrote:
>>> Thanks David. This is exactly why we cannot use the Ruggie definition of
>>> ³respect². Again, it is difficult for me to see how Ruggie applies since
>>> those principles are developed in relation to a corporation that operates
>>> ³top down² rather than ³bottom up² and were not developed in relation to the
>>> unique MS policy development framework that applies to ICANN.
>>>
>>> The Ruggie definition of ³respect² would require ICANN action in the context
>>> of evaluating and minimizing Human Rights adverse impact in all its
>>> business relationships.
>>>
>>> ICANN¹s 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 ³business relationships² 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 ³start from
>>> scratch² 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 ³balancing act² 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
>>>
>>> ³WHEREAS the application of internationally-recognized Human Rights
>>> principles in the context of ICANN¹s mission and scope requires policy
>>> development processes within the ICANN Community and
>>>
>>> WHEREAS, the application of these principles to ICANN¹s activities may
>>> require a balancing of ICANN¹s 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 ICANN¹s scope and mission.²
>>>
>>> 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 ICANN¹s
>>> fundamental compact with the global Internet community and are intended to
>>> apply consistently and comprehensively to ICANN¹s 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 ICANN¹s 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] On Behalf Of
>>> McAuley, David
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 3:34 PM
>>> To: Dr. Tatiana Tropina; 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 don¹t
>>> 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
>>> Œcharter¹ (Section 27.2) as an effort containing ³limitations² rather than
>>> an invitation to expand the bylaw (Article 1.2(b)(viii) begins ³Subject to
>>> the limitations set forth in Section 27.2 Š²).
>>>
>>> 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 ICANN¹s 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] On Behalf Of
>>> Dr. Tatiana Tropina
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:38 PM
>>> To: 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 team¹s 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 ³framework of
>>>> interpretation for human rights². This is much broader than providing ³a
>>>> framework of interpretation for the Bylaw². 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 ICANN¹s 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/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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] On Behalf
>>>> Of Greg Shatan
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 11:13 AM
>>>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
>>>> Cc: 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>
>>>> 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 ³need to
>>>> know² 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 won¹t 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 don¹t 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 ICANN¹s 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 ICANN¹s 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 ³respect human rights² 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, author¹s 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 ICANN¹s 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] On Behalf
>>>> Of Tijani BEN JEMAA
>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2016 11:13 AM
>>>> To: Paul Rosenzweig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cc: 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 can¹t say they are the only meaningful questions since there will be
>>>> subsequent questions. But let¹s 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> 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 you¹re 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] On Behalf
>>>>> Of farzaneh badii
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2016 11:56 AM
>>>>> To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>>>> Cc: 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
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Seun Ojedeji,
>>>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>>>>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>>>>> Mobile: +2348035233535
>>>>> alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20160908/85391dee/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 5270 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20160908/85391dee/image005-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6514 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20160908/85391dee/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6514 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20160908/85391dee/image006-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20160908/85391dee/ATT00001-0001.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4583 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20160908/85391dee/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the Ws2-hr
mailing list