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

Tue Sep 27 18:33:46 UTC 2016

+1 Bastiaan.

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Bastiaan Goslings <
bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> wrote:

> I do not think we need to establish _which_ human rights ICANN should
> respect (more). The way I interpret the core value is that the
> applicability of (‘internationally recognised') rights is determined by
> ‘applicable law’. ‘As required’.
>
> Furthermore, the core value does not speak of ‘commit’ or a ‘commitment’ -
> because it is a core value. Together with the other values, and that could
> be a balancing act, it ‘should also guide the decisions and actions of
> ICANN’.
>
> (The ‘also’ refers to the commitments in section 1.2)
>
> -Bastiaan
>
> > On 27 Sep 2016, at 19:56, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20160927/708ce15d/attachment.html>