[Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC

Tue Sep 27 17:56:16 UTC 2016

You seem to assume that the Framework will deal with rights at the granular
level.  I don't think it needs to or should.  The question is "What human
rights is ICANN committed to respect?"  I don't think the answer should be
"Some of them."

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Appelman <dappelman at mh-llp.com>
wrote:

> Some human rights are obviously more applicable to ICANN than others.
> ICANN’s framework should focus on those in particular.  If that’s
> “cherry-picking” then I don’t understand how anyone could object to it.
> Why would the framework even bother with human rights that are inapplicable
> to ICANN’s mission and activities?  It’s just not logical.
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:42 AM
> *To:* Schweighofer Erich
> *Cc:* ws2-hr at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC
>
>
>
> A response on Erich's last point:
>
>
>
> WS2-HR should focus on the freedom of communication worldwide, subject to
> usual safeguard clauses + the international human rights treaty obligations.
>
>
>
> This sounds suspiciously like "cherry-picking" (i.e., picking and
> choosing among human rights obligation), and I am firmly opposed to that.
> Also while human rights treaty obligations are relevant (and we need to
> determine what we are referring to as such) they do not bind ICANN,
> except to the extent they have been adopted and codified by applicable
> laws.  The Bylaw doesn't take us further than that.
>
>
>
> It is not cherry-picking, it is a suggestion which human rights are
> relevant to be considered. Free communication should be the main concern.
>
> You are right that human rights treaties formally do not bind ICANN but
> that sound not good in practice. We have to substitute this by
> self-commitment, as we do now.
>
>
>
> We've been using the term cherry-picking to mean just that -- picking and
> choosing, menu-style, from the list of human rights and deciding that some
> are going to be considered and some won't.  Whatever you call it, I'm
> opposed to it.  I'm not opposed to choosing among human rights conventions
> and instruments; indeed, we must do that.  But within, e.g., the UDHR, we
> should not be picking, we need to take it whole as a document.   The extent
> of ICANN's commitment to human rights is stated in the Bylaw, --  to
> *respect* *internationally recognized human rights* *as required by
> applicable law*.  This is critical in three ways: (1) ICANN's commitment
> is one of "respecting" (and not protecting or enforcing) human rights (and
> we need to define what "respect" means in the context of ICANN, which
> unfortunately does not align with Ruggie's idea of respect for business
> enterprises); (2) ICANN must look to "internationally recognized human
> rights" -- no more and no less; and (3) ICANN's commitment is limited to
> what is "required by applicable law."  ICANN could go further of course
> (e.g., it could ensure there are gluten free food options at every ICANN
> meeting and event), but that is not a Bylaws issue and thus not a Framework
> of Interpretation issue.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Schweighofer Erich <
> erich.schweighofer at univie.ac.at> wrote:
>
> My clarifications „inline“. Sorry for quick drafting and being unclear.
>
> Erich Schweighofer
>
>
>
> *Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 27. September 2016 17:35
> *An:* Schweighofer Erich
> *Cc:* Niels ten Oever; ws2-hr at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC
>
>
>
> I agree in part and disagree in part:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Schweighofer Erich <
> erich.schweighofer at univie.ac.at> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>
> The more I read about Ruggie Principles I am convinced that they do not
> really fit for ICANN.
>
> 
>
> I tend to agree with this.
>
>
>
> The hard legal core of ICANN's obligations is much less, even depending on
> the various jurisdictions.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure what this means.  If it means that there are Ruggie
> obligations that don't fit ICANN, then I agree.  Otherwise, this needs
> further explanation.
>
>
>
> Yes – Ruggie do not fit properly. ICANN is essential for a global
> communication platform and must respect related human rights –the “hard
> core”, subject to the interpretation in the various jurisdictions.
>
>
>
> ICANN is inclusive, e.g. also flexible.
>
>
>
> Again not sure what this means.  If this means that ICANN must be
> inclusive of, e.g., New gTLD applicants and ccTLD operators (governments
> and otherwise), whether or not they comply with human rights provision,
> then I agree.  ICANN can't be a human rights filter for the Internet.  If
> this means something else, it needs further explanation. 
>
>
>
> It means that we cannot oblige new gTLD applicants or ccTLD operators to
> comply with human rights above the national interpretation of human rights
> obligations. There are other fora to discuss compliance with human rights
> standards.
>
>
>
> WS2-HR should focus on the freedom of communication worldwide, subject to
> usual safeguard clauses + the international human rights treaty
> obligations.
>
>
>
> This sounds suspiciously like "cherry-picking" (i.e., picking and
> choosing among human rights obligation), and I am firmly opposed to that.
> Also while human rights treaty obligations are relevant (and we need to
> determine what we are referring to as such) they do not bind ICANN,
> except to the extent they have been adopted and codified by applicable
> laws.  The Bylaw doesn't take us further than that.
>
>
>
> It is not cherry-picking, it is a suggestion which human rights are
> relevant to be considered. Free communication should be the main concern.
>
> You are right that human rights treaties formally do not bind ICANN but
> that sound not good in practice. We have to substitute this by
> self-commitment, as we do now.
>
>
>
> In an ethical code of ICANN, we can go much further, and here we can
> re-use Ruggie to some extent.
>
>
>
> An "ethical code of ICANN" is far, far beyond the mandate and scope of
> this subgroup.  Our task is to provide a framework for interpreting the
> Bylaw.
>
>
>
> It is good to work on an idealistic world but we have to realistic, too.
>
>
>
> That I can agree with.
>
> 
>
>
>
> Best, Erich Schweighofer
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org] Im
> Auftrag von Niels ten Oever
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. September 2016 11:18
> An: ws2-hr at icann.org
> Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Please find underneath and attached the proposed agenda for the call of
> September 27, 19:00 UTC.
>
> Comments and suggestions are welcome.
>
> 1. Administrivia
> Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc
> 2. Analysis of Ruggie Principles for ICANN - discussion on UN Guiding
> Principles 15, 13, 19 3. AOB
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160927/d5c102c4/attachment-0001.html>