<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Agree with Greg,</p>
<p>this discussion is related to the document on what was agreed in
the Ws1 (it was recently finalised by the team of volunteers and
everyone can access it). We had quite a heated debate in the WP4,
and there was a general agreement that we can't adopt a definition
of "respect" from Ruggie - partially this is why the bylaw is
dormant and we need a framework of interpretation. The part (b) of
the Ruggie definition raised serious concerns about protection and
enforcement. I hope Paul Twomey can later intervene this
discussion and repeat his concerns again, but we might have a look
at the transcripts from WS1, I remember that on one of the calls
he made a clear statement about Ruggie. The comments in the Google
documents on WS1 and FoI refer to this debate. <br>
</p>
<p>At the same time, I express my support to the idea that we are
better to follow the same language we used before (and that is in
the CCWG report and the bylaw), meaning that we use the words
"respect", "protect" and "enforce" in order to avoid confusions.
However, answering the question of what respect, protect and
enforce mean for ICANN is exactly one of the tasks of this group.
<br>
</p>
<p>Warm regards</p>
<p>Tatiana <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/09/16 17:43, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUSHJ06VNuEDRwAXfzn2aCc6eTBMaRUjW92LqSFh3=sLMQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Paul,</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">My prior email in this
thread touches on why we would not want to adopt (at least not
in full) part (b) of the Ruggie Principles' definition of
"respect". Paul Twomey has also commented on this issue at
length during WS1; if we could resurface those comments it
would be very helpful. The commentary around the draft
documents in Google Docs also touches on this issue.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:36 AM, <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="DE-CH">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Good
question</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Jorge
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="DE">Von:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="DE"> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-hr-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a>]
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag, 6. September 2016
17:35<br>
<b>An:</b> 'Greg Shatan' <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com"
target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>;
'Nigel Roberts' <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net"
target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-hr@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN
uphold human rights?</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Can someone better versed in this
articulate for me why we would NOT want to use
the Ruggie definition. I agree that the CCWG
did not intend us to necessarily adopt that
definition; but they also did not necessarily
intend to exclude it. For the reasons Greg has
articulated, it seems to me that it would be
wise to follow accepted practice UNLESS there is
a good reason not to. Hence my question: Is
there something wrong with the way “respect” is
used by the Ruggie principles that I am missing?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">P</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Paul Rosenzweig</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">paul.rosenzweig@<wbr>redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">O: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660"
value="+12025470660" target="_blank">+1 (202)
547-0660</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">M: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650"
value="+12023299650" target="_blank">+1 (202)
329-9650</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">VOIP: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739"
value="+12027381739" target="_blank">+1 (202)
738-1739</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/"
target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">My PGP Key:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/"
target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">http://redbranchconsulting.<wbr>com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/</span></a>
<u><span style="color:#0563c1"></span></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 6, 2016 10:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nigel Roberts <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net"
target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-hr@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN
uphold human rights?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">I have a good deal of sympathy
with Nigel's position. But that leaves us
with a significant issue:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">1. The Bylaw uses the verb
"respect."</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">2. "Respect" has (at least
arguably) a settled meaning in the field of
corporations and human rights, from the
Ruggie Principles.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">3. It was not the intention of
the CCWG to adopt the Ruggie Principles'
definition of "respect."</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">4. It's up to this group,
initially, to consider what we mean by
"respect" in the context of ICANN and human
rights (and our recommendations will then go
back to the CCWG and out for public comment,
etc.).</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">5. If we do not recommend that
the Ruggie Principles' definition of
"respect" be adopted in its entirety, we
will either:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> a. End up with a
definition of "respect" that varies from the
Ruggie Principles, or</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> b. Need to recommend an
amendment of the Bylaws to change the word
"respect" to a word or phrase that is not a
"term of art" in the application of human
rights, and we will need to recommend an
appropriate word or phrase for that purpose.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">6. Picking up on Nigel's last
point, we will need to understand and
explain "respect/protect/enforce" and
explain that our recommendation for what
ICANN should do does not fall into any of
those three defined terms as they are used
in the Ruggie Principles. Frankly, we need
to do this sooner rather than later, as it
is really an essential part of our task, and
this discussion highlights how careful we
need to be in choosing certain words in our
discussion as well as our recommendations.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Greg</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On Tue,
Sep 6, 2016 at 3:28 AM, Nigel Roberts <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net"
target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>>
wrote:</span></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Actually,
I will strongly caution against using
terms-of-art with divergent or
'roll-your-own' definitions.<br>
<br>
It may be tempting for ICANN to create our
own variant definiton of terms like
'respect for', but this is likely to cause
confusion, and even potential conflict
with government actors (among others) to
whom human rights law, and principles
directly apply.<br>
<br>
I submit what we need to do is understand
fully and explain the meaning of such
terms-of-art and put them in the context
of ICANN's voluntary adoption of a common,
albeit basic, commitment to fundamental
rights standard.<br>
<br>
Re-definition, is not the way forward, I
suggest.</span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 06/09/16 03:12, Greg Shatan wrote:</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc
1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A
few quick comments on the thread
above.<br>
<br>
It is important that we be precise
with our verbs. The Ruggie<br>
Principles use three verbs, each
with different meanings and with<br>
application to different actors:
"respect," "protect" and "enforce."<br>
I'm not suggesting we should adopt
the Ruggie Principles' meanings for<br>
all of these words, but they could
be useful as a starting point. As a<br>
matter of fact, I don't think we can
or should adopt the Ruggie<br>
Principles' definition of "respect"
in the ICANN context. But we should<br>
be careful about how we use these
words, and how we use other verbs.<br>
<br>
As was already noted, "uphold" is a
whole new verb, with no standard<br>
meaning in the human rights context
that I'm aware of. "Enforce" was<br>
also used in this thread, but in a
very different context than in the<br>
Ruggie Principles, where
"enforcement" applies only to the
activities of<br>
states. We need to determine what
we mean by each verb we use, and<br>
especially by "respect" since it
appears in the Bylaw.<br>
<br>
I believe that Niels quoted from the
Ruggie Principles definition of<br>
respect earlier in this thread when
he referred to the draft FoI<br>
document. I believe Paul Twomey in
particular has pointed out the<br>
significant issues that could arise
if ICANN were to adopt part (b) of<br>
this definition:<br>
<br>
(b) Seek to prevent or mitigate
adverse human rights impacts that
are<br>
directly linked to their operations,
products or services by their<br>
business relationships, even if they
have not contributed to those
impacts.<br>
<br>
As I understand this, it requires a
party to exert pressure, through<br>
business relationships, on third
parties. I don't think it's at all<br>
settled that ICANN's relationships
with applicants, registries and<br>
registrars are "business
relationships," even where these
parties have<br>
contracts with ICANN. But if some
or all of these are "business<br>
relationships," this could easily be
read to require ICANN to impose<br>
restrictions on registries and
registrars, and on applicants, that
would<br>
be extremely broad-ranging and may
we be antithetical to ICANN's
mission.<br>
<br>
I generally agree with John Curran
regarding application concerns in
the<br>
implementation phase. Once the
ICANN policy process has resulted in<br>
recommendations which are adopted,
the primary focus in implementation<br>
needs to be faithfully carrying out
the policy recommendations. It's<br>
fair to assume that human rights
have been taken into account in the<br>
policy development process, along
with and balanced against other
rights<br>
and concerns, and that what results
from the multistakeholder process<br>
should be given effect in
implementation.<br>
<br>
Greg<br>
<br>
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:11 PM, John
Curran <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jcurran@istaff.org"
target="_blank">jcurran@istaff.org</a></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jcurran@istaff.org"
target="_blank">jcurran@istaff.org</a>>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
On Sep 5, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Niels
ten Oever <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net"
target="_blank">lists@nielstenoever.net</a></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">
<mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net"
target="_blank">lists@nielstenoever.<wbr>net</a>>>
wrote:</span></p>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
lang="EN-US"> ...<br>
b) Seek to prevent or mitigate
adverse human rights impacts that
are<br>
directly linked to their
operations, products or services
by their<br>
business relationships, even
if they have not contributed to
those<br>
impacts.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br>
Interesting predicament. If one
imagines the potential for an<br>
update to one of<br>
the IANA registries that in turn
poses an impact to human rights –<br>
i.e. following<br>
the specific guidance from the
appropriate community that is<br>
contracting with<br>
ICANN/PTI for IANA services
would result in an HR impact, then
the<br>
above<br>
proposed responsibility (to
prevent or mitigate...) would
suggest<br>
that ICANN<br>
should to do otherwise.<br>
<br>
Note that the event of ICANN/PTI
acting contrary to the clear<br>
direction of one of<br>
the respective communities
(names, numbers, protocols) with
regard<br>
to IANA<br>
registry updates could easily
precipitate a crisis that results in<br>
the end of ICANN,<br>
and thus should probably be
avoided...<br>
<br>
ICANN (including PTI) needs to
place the highest priority upon<br>
fidelity to the<br>
outcomes of the
multi-stakeholder process, since its
existence is<br>
predicated<br>
(particularly in a post-NTIA
contract environment) upon the<br>
presupposition<br>
of the validity of that
process. This is also the reason
why I<br>
noted that there<br>
is a significant difference
between application of HR principles<br>
within the multi-<br>
stakeholder policy development
process when compared to later on<br>
during the<br>
policy implementation phases.<br>
<br>
/John<br>
<br>
Disclaimer: my views alone.
Feel free to use, share, or discard
as<br>
desired.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-hr mailing list</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
lang="EN-US"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org"
target="_blank">
Ws2-hr@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a>><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-hr</a><br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-hr</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-hr mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-hr</a></span></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-hr mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org"
target="_blank">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-hr</a></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>