[Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda for call September 13 1900 UTC
Seun Ojedeji
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sun Sep 18 18:05:30 UTC 2016
FWIW, I like the three focus areas enumerated by John. I think it makes a
lot of sense as it's only addressing HR issues during the PDP and not post
PDP. In essence, it's only the text of a final policy that implementers
would need to comply with and be accountable to.
While I understand that details of this would still need to be fleshed out,
a devil that I foresee is when for some reason the HR concerns did not
influence a policy proposal before it becomes final, would there be any
grounds for HR violation if the policy proceeds? Ofcourse no need to
response now but I hope the detailed response of that would result to a NO.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 17 Sep 2016 9:47 p.m., "John Curran" <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> Anne -
>
> I believe that we should (at a minimum) seek to improve ICANN’s policy
> development
> and implementation activities with respect to potential HR issues by:
>
> 1) Clearly defining what HR Convention(s) that will be considered
> applicable to its activities,
> 2) Provide a straightforward method for any party to raise a concern
> during the policy
> development process or during any ICANN consultation (to cover
> operational matters)
> that the intended policy or process would pose a threat to one or
> more human rights
> contained within the agreed list of HR Conventions, and
> 3) that raising such Human Right concern would in turn require that the
> final policy or
> process outcome be amended to directly acknowledge the raised
> concern and either
> include appropriate changes or provide a clear explanation of why
> the concern is either
> not relevant or is deemed a reasonable balance in light of ICANN’s
> overall obligations.
>
> If we do that (and do it well) we will have created an FOI-HR framework
> that it is both useful
> and yet operating fully within ICANN’s existing mission and mandate.
>
> /John
>
> p.s. my views alone - apologies to the electrons who labored to carry
> these thoughts all
> over the planet.
>
> On Sep 13, 2016, at 7:08 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> wrote:
>
> Another practical consideration to review as FOI-HR is being developed:
> Would registries get extra points in the application process for making
> Human Rights Public Interest Commitments? Does an HR PIC complaint and
> ICANN’s subsequent determination of whether such HR PIC is being met by the
> registry put it in the content regulation business?
>
> I think Andrew pointed out on the call that it is a good idea to consider
> what we are trying to fix or promote. Does “respect” just mean “avoid
> adverse impact” or does it mean something more, e.g. “reward positive
> impact”. Shall we define the word “respect” in the FOI-HR?
>
> Anne
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
> Of Counsel
> 520.629.4428 office
> 520.879.4725 fax
> AAikman at lrrc.com
> _____________________________
> <image005.png>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> lrrc.com
>
> *From:* ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org
> <ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 13, 2016 3:29 PM
> *To:* 'Kavouss Arasteh'
> *Cc:* ws2-hr at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda for call September 13 1900 UTC
>
> Dear Kavouss,
> I do not understand why you object to even discussing the issue of how
> FOI – HR relates to the Policy Development Process and GAC Policy Advice.
> If everyone is content to know that the FOI-HR will not apply to any
> Registry contract prior to development of Consensus Policy via a PDP or
> Expedited PDP, then that is quite alright with me. I am just pointing out
> that this is the path we are heading down.
>
> I think it would be smarter to engage stakeholders broadly and earlier –
> that is, in the form of GAC public policy advice and GNSO guidance (at the
> very least) in the drafting of the Framework itself. If we do so early on,
> then a “go-ahead” from the Chartering Organizations will be much easier to
> obtain later.
>
> As was pointed out by someone else on the call, we also need to make a
> recommendation – in the Framework – as to whether or not it may serve as a
> basis for a Request for Reconsideration or an IRP, which is certainly
> implied by the drafting in the new By-Laws. Again, I think it would be
> wiser to obtain GAC public policy advice and GNSO Guidance on this point
> now rather than later (when we think our work is done.)
>
> The following tasks are set out for our group:
> <image003.png>
>
>
> Anne
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
> Of Counsel
> 520.629.4428 office
> 520.879.4725 fax
> AAikman at lrrc.com
> _____________________________
> <image004.png>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> lrrc.com
>
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 13, 2016 1:48 PM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> *Cc:* Niels ten Oever; ws2-hr at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda for call September 13 1900 UTC
>
> Dear Anne
> What you are saying may be right but this is outside our terms of
> reference.
> We have to establish the draft Recommendation(s) on the FOI relating to
> Human Rights and submit that to CCWG .Once adopted by CCWG then it will be
> probably put into public comments
> After the Recommendation(s) are finalized it7 they will be submitted to
> ICANN and thus it is up to ICANN to deal with that.
> Should ICANN decides that parts of all of that should be subject to
> PDP,it is ICANN decision and policy.
> Consequently, we should not be involved in the necessity or otherwise of
> developing PDP or recommending the need or otherwise of PDP.
> Should there be any doubt on that the chair should raise this point at the
> next meeting of CCWG Plenary.
> In view of the above, I strongly disagree with the inclusion of the item
> in the agenda as an agreed item
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2016-09-13 22:18 GMT+02:00 Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>:
> Having said that Human Rights FOI could be introduced in the Subsequent
> Procedures PDP currently underway but might happen faster via its own
> Expedited PDP. This is only important if you want to bind registries.
> Please note that ICANN applicable law in this regard does not
> automatically apply to registries.
>
> 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: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 1:08 PM
> To: 'Niels ten Oever'; ws2-hr at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda for call September 13 1900 UTC
>
> Dear all,
> I hope that everyone understands that no provision re Human Rights can be
> added to a Registry Contract unless developed via Consensus Policy.
> Consensus Policy is a strictly defined term. (These are the only
> provisions which may be added unilaterally by ICANN.) Further, the ONLY
> method of developing Consensus Policy is pursuant to either a full Policy
> Development Process or else an Expedited Policy Development Process.
>
> So if you think you can adopt a Ruggie principle of ICANN addressing Human
> Rights in all its business relationships, you must also apply the Ruggie 18
> b principle and understand that NO REGISTRY IS BOUND BY ANYTHING OTHER THAN
> CONSENSUS POLICY (and applicable law of the jurisdiction where the
> Registry is based.)
>
> 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 Niels ten Oever
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 11:15 PM
> To: ws2-hr at icann.org
> Subject: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda for call September 13 1900 UTC
>
> Dear all,
>
> Please find underneath the proposed agenda for the call for September 13
> 1900 UTC.
>
> Please let me know if you would like to add, amend or remove any agenda
> points.
>
> 1. Administrivia
> Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc
>
> 2. Final Discussion on: Summary on what was agreed and discussed on human
> rights during WS1 (attached and here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rwpw9aSAqboRO2_
> rNkjMVJPOmYwmdr5B1_M_aNMoZb4/edit?usp=sharing
> )
>
> 3. General Discussion & Q&A on Ruggie Principles and Ruggie FIFA report
> (attached and here:
> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_
> EN.pdf
>
> https://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/79736/1789834/version
> /1/file/Ruggie_humanrightsFIFA_reportApril2016.pdf )
>
> 4. Discussion on: Analysis of Ruggie Principles for ICANN – Short
> presentation by Drafting Volunteershttps://docs.google.com/document/d/
> 10XMIVosuEfgmXwr7SQjeNLKI8r_hdONrJNV2ih72V80/edit
>
> 5. AOB
>
> Looking forward to the call.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
>
> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>
> ________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20160918/fbb1bdba/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-hr
mailing list