[Ws2-hr] Redline and also excerpt from Considerations re ICANN.org reviewing framework with SOs and ACs

Wed Aug 9 20:44:48 UTC 2017

I agree with Tijani's sentiments. However if for instance ICANN wants to
consider the principle for their internal processes (as Anne seem to
suggest in her recent mail) then I think that is fine so long as "where
applicable" exists somewhere in the overall text.

Cheers!

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Aug 9, 2017 12:52 PM, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
wrote:

> Dear Anne and all,
>
> I understand that we try to integrate the comments received in our text,
> but there are 2 main things that I believe important to take into
> considération:
>
>    1. The Ruggie Principles were discussed in length from the very
>    beginning, and the decision inside the sub-group was not to use them for
>    the main reason that they are for business entreprises and ICANN is not a
>    business entreprise. Yes, I know Anne that we are speaking about the
>    consideration document and not the FoI itself. But can you please tell me
>    what will be the use of those « considerations »? They will accompany the
>    FoI we are proposing and thus will be taken into consideration.
>    The « UNGPs » are exactly the « Ruggie Principles ». Bringing them back on
>    the table is not appropriate in my opinion.
>    2. I agree with Tatiana that it is not in our remit to tell ICANN the
>    org whether it should offer remediation, which is related
>    to implementation, not interpretation.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
> Phone: +216 98 330 114 <+216%2098%20330%20114>
>             +216 52 385 114 <+216%2052%20385%20114>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>
>
> Le 8 août 2017 à 23:57, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> a écrit :
>
> Hi Brett and Steve,
> First I want to note that the change being discussed relates to the
> “Considerations” document and not to the FOI itself.
>
> I was quite vocal on today’s call about not imposing any particular tool
> on the PDP process and about the idea that if ICANN org wants to propose a
> Human Rights “framework”, the Board would need to present that idea to the
> SOs and ACs for PDP work.  (Our Considerations doc already says this.)  So
> several of us expressed the view that the use of the word “Framework” in
> connection with what ICANN Org can do regarding its own internal operations
> is not appropriate.
>
> As later clarified by Niels, he was trying to accommodate public comment
> by the governments of the UK, Brazil, and Switzerland by talking about the
> availability of certain of the tools suggested in Ruggie to gauge IMPACT on
> the organization.  This is a much narrower change which deals with
> assessment tools rather than frameworks for addressing Human Rights
> concerns.  (I think there was no objection to deleting “for further
> remediation” from the proposed language.)
>
> This is why I suggested the compromise of referring to “tools” (instead of
> “frameworks”) in the Considerations document and gave the specific example
> of Principle 18 of Ruggie as a possible assessment tool available to ICANN
> the organization.
>
> Principle 18 provides as shown below.  Principle 18(b) appears to me to be
> quite consistent with the Multi-Stakeholder Model and actually preferable
> to the use of an HRIA tool alone since the folks who conduct HRIAs are not
> used to the ICANN Model and are not used to balancing Core Values as ICANN
> is required to do by the ByLaw.  Nor are they at all used to according each
> Human Right equal weight so I think Principle 18)b) is particularly useful
> in this exercise.
>
> Concerning the use of the word “business relationships” in Principle 18, I
> think it would have to be clarified that we are not talking about
> Contracted Party business relationships.  Any assessment of or changes to
> those contracts would have to be the subject of Consensus Policy developed
> via PDP.
>
> 18.
> In order to gauge human rights risks, business enterprises should identify
> and assess any actual or potential adverse human rights impacts with
> which they may be involved either through their own activities or as a
> result of their business relationships. This process should:
> (a)
> Draw on internal and/or independent external human rights
> expertise;
> (b)
> Involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups
> and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate to the size of the
> business enterprise and the nature and context of the operation.
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
> Of Counsel
> 520.629.4428 office
> 520.879.4725 fax
> AAikman at lrrc.com
> _____________________________
> <image002.png>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> lrrc.com
>
> *From:* Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org
> <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 08, 2017 3:35 PM
> *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> *Cc:* ws2-hr at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] Redline and also excerpt from Considerations re
> ICANN.org <http://icann.org/> reviewing framework with SOs and ACs
>
> Agree with Brett on this: we will not have consensus to impose any
> particular HR instrument on the policy development process in gNSO and
> ccNSO.
>
>
> *From: *<ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" <
> Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> *Date: *Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 4:50 PM
> *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> *Cc: *"ws2-hr at icann.org" <ws2-hr at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Ws2-hr] Redline and also excerpt from Considerations re
> ICANN.org <http://icann.org/> reviewing framework with SOs and ACs
>
>
> Granted, I have not been active lately, but the last I knew specific
> references to any HR instrument or the UNGPs had been deemed outside of
> consensus. How does this keep coming back into the text?
> ------------------------------
> *BrettSchaefer*
>
> *Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory
> AffairsMargaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
> Security and Foreign Policy*
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
> __________
>
>
> On Aug 8, 2017, at 4:06 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:
> Personally, I agree with Niels that if ICANN.org <http://icann.org/> decides
> by a vote of the Board of Directors to use Ruggie as an assessment tool and
> then presents those results to the SOs and ACs for further consideration in
> the policy development processes, that is fine.   Don’t know whether the
> cost of such an assessment would create a budgetary issue. I also think we
> should be careful not to create possible liability or evidence that would
> be used to support action against the ICANN Board/organization.
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
> Of Counsel
> 520.629.4428 office
> 520.879.4725 fax
> AAikman at lrrc.com
> _____________________________
> <image001.png>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> lrrc.com
>
> *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 08, 2017 1:01 PM
> *To:* ws2-hr at icann.org
> *Subject:* Redline and also excerpt from Considerations re ICANN.org
> <http://icann.org/> reviewing framework with SOs and ACs
>
> In the Considerations document, we also have language which tries to
> protect the role of SOs and ACs  as follows:
>
> “When developing corporate or operational policies, and executing its
> operations, ICANN the organization should take the Human Rights Core Value
> into account. In order to do so ICANN the organization should propose a
> framework to the community, which should include multistakeholder
> involvement in its development, and regular review.”
>
>
> *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
>
> <image005.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20170809/aba65ca3/attachment-0001.html>