[Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC
McAuley, David
dmcauley at verisign.com
Wed Sep 28 12:27:47 UTC 2016
I think Bastian well states our role in this sub-team.
Nigel makes a fair point about the idea that inhibiting relevant discussion can itself be an adverse impact but in my view that has to be read in context. In our case that context is, as Bastian put it, the HR core value text - Bylaw Article 1.2(b)(viii).
While many discussions about HR might take place in an open context, that appears not to be the case for our work. I believe this sub-team’s work is to interpret a bylaw that sets certain conditions.
These conditions are that ICANN’s commitment to respect HR will:
1. Be done within the scope of ICANN’s mission and other core values;
2. Relate to “internationally recognized human rights as required by applicable law”;
3. Not create or “be interpreted to create” any obligation on ICANN outside of its mission or beyond obligations found in applicable law;
4. Not obligate ICANN to enforce its HR obligations, or the HR obligations of other parties, against other parties; and
5. Be subject to any other limitations set forth in Bylaw Article 27.2.
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154
-----Original Message-----
From: ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bastiaan Goslings
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 3:21 AM
To: Nigel Roberts
Cc: ws2-hr at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC
> On 28 Sep 2016, at 08:20, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
>
> Paul is correct.
>
> I also must take issue with Greg. The construction of the by law so as to restrict ICANN to only respect human rights where an applicable DOMESTIC law requires it to, is wrong, and is the exact reason I argued, in the minority, against the phrase.
This tells me that you have a strong negative opinion about the text of new ‘respecting human rights’ core value. (’The construction (…) is wrong’). If so I can respect that.
(It also suggests to me you’d prefer to see this bylaw different, stronger and more explicit, with regard to the responsibility ICANN should have with regard to respecting human rights. But now I am probably starting to speculate.)
However.
I have been trying to put my personal preferences and opinions aside and take the HR core value text as a starting point when engaging in this WS2 subgroup. Including how this core value text fits within the rest of the new bylaws/core values/mission text. While using the WS1 final report to get a feel for the context and what we are trying to achieve in WS2 with regard to ICANNs respecting of HRs, i.e. that this new core value, together with the others, ‘should guide the decisions and actions of ICANN’. This has been the main reason for me to stress the ‘as required by applicable law’ part of the core value, combined with the additional hard limitations set in the bylaw itself and in the mission (1.1. (c)).
What I am trying to say here is that IMO we need to work with the text that has been agreed upon in WS1 -which is challenging enough as it is as it already gives plenty of room for diverging opinions- and not broaden (reopen?) the scope of what we are meant to deliver. Of course let me know if I am missing anything here, until further notice I will assume that the core value text itself, whatever people might think of it, is not open for debate.
>
> There is no applicable law,, for example, that protects individuals and organisations against breaches of their right to free expression.
>
> If there is, tell me what it is, and where I can read and construe it.
>
> In particular, please tell me the section of that law that makes it applicable to a private company that no longer has any formal connection to the US Government.
>
>
>
>
> On 27/09/16 21:05, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>> I guess you folks leave me confused. Certainly, all human rights are due to be respected. But if the FoI is to have any use at all, doesn't it have to deal with actual use case scenarios that are applicable to ICANN? There are human rights prohibitions against torture, that ICANN must respect -- but the chances of that particular human right having any relevance to anything that ICANN will ever do is vanishingly small, no? Why would we construct an FoI that is so amorphous that it accommodates that possibility if in doing so we lose adequate guidance for the HR issues that are more likely to be relevant?
>>
>> Can we not agree that human rights are universal and indivisible but that some of them are more likely of applicability to ICANN's operations than others? Or is that really so controversial a statement that it can't be made?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>> My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Appelman
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 2:59 PM
>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; 'Bastiaan Goslings' <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> Cc: ws2-hr at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughts, Anne. I never advocated excluding any human rights from the framework, of course. But none of the comments thus far have convinced me that they are all equally relevant for ICANN.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:53 AM
>> To: Daniel Appelman; 'Bastiaan Goslings'; Greg Shatan
>> Cc: ws2-hr at icann.org
>> Subject: RE: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC
>>
>> Dan,
>> I think that in the FOI-HR, it would be a mistake to single out which Human Rights we think have to be considered (to the exclusion of others) in ICANN's processes and business relationships. I think the Framework must leave the freedom for ICANN, in its various processes, to consider and balance all international human rights. To exclude some would be dangerous - and just plain wrong, since, a Nigel pointed out in the call I had to miss, there is, in connection with any such human rights evaluation, a balancing act to be performed.
>> 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: Daniel Appelman [mailto:dappelman at mh-llp.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:50 AM
>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Bastiaan Goslings'; Greg Shatan
>> Cc: ws2-hr at icann.org
>> Subject: RE: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC
>>
>> Anne: So does that first statement also mean that in your opinion it is not true that some human rights are more RELEVANT to ICANN's activities and mission than others? And is that the consensus of the WG?
>> I do agree with the statements in your second and third paragraphs, btw.
>> Dan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:34 AM
>> To: 'Bastiaan Goslings'; Greg Shatan
>> Cc: ws2-hr at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC
>>
>> It is not true that "some human rights are more important than others". I agree with those who have noted that continued attempts to "cherry-pick" among human rights are inappropriate and not in scope for the task. This is clear from the document stating the conclusions from WS1 and that document was already agreed on by the subteam in a prior meeting.
>>
>> I also wish to re-emphasize that the primary role in which ICANN may have a positive impact on human rights is in its primary business relationships. These are the contractual obligations with registries and registrars. Again, these are matters which must ultimately be addressed via PDP so in developing an FOI-HR, we must take that into account and understand that we are developing an FOI-HR that will be applied in the PDP process (as well as other processes within ICANN.)
>>
>> As I understand it, there is no "applicable law" that will require application of the FOI-HR to the PDP process. That would be wholly voluntary. Some may feel this is beyond scope and mission as to what the Bylaw requires. Would like to know others thoughts on this point.
>>
>> 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 Bastiaan Goslings
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:20 AM
>> To: Greg Shatan
>> Cc: ws2-hr at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC
>>
>> 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 co!
> mmitment i
> s 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Ws2-hr
mailing list