<html>
<head>
<!-- Template generated by Exclaimer Mail Disclaimers on 01:27:06 Wednesday, 4 January 2017 -->
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css">P.e083c3ac-b378-40af-bb25-de9d401d50ad {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
LI.e083c3ac-b378-40af-bb25-de9d401d50ad {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
DIV.e083c3ac-b378-40af-bb25-de9d401d50ad {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
TABLE.e083c3ac-b378-40af-bb25-de9d401d50adTable {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</style>
</head>
<body dir="auto">
<p class="e083c3ac-b378-40af-bb25-de9d401d50ad"></p>
<div>Nigel,</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">That was the debate at the time, whether any international HR instrument would/should apply. It was inserted to preserve the possibility that no such legal instrument was appropriate in interpreting the bylaw. </div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">Best,</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">Brett<br>
<br>
</div>
<p></p>
<p class="e083c3ac-b378-40af-bb25-de9d401d50ad"></p>
<hr align="left" color="#58595b" width="200">
<span style="font-size:x-small; color: #004B8D; font-weight: bold; ">Brett</span><span style="font-size:x-small; color: #004B8D; font-weight: bold; "></span>
<span style="font-size:x-small; color: #004B8D; font-weight: bold; ">Schaefer</span><span style="font-size:x-small; color: #58595B; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic; "><br>
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs</span><span style="font-size:x-small; color: #58595B; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic; "></span><span style="font-size:x-small; color: #58595B; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic; "><br>
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy</span><br>
<font color="#58595b" size="2">The Heritage Foundation<br>
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002</font><span style="font-size:x-small; color: #58595B; "><br>
202-608-6097</span><br>
<font color="#004b8d" size="2"><a style="COLOR: #004b8d; TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://heritage.org/">heritage.org</a><br>
<span style="font-size:x-small; "></span><span style="font-size:x-small; "></span>
<p></p>
</font>
<p></p>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">__________</div>
<div><br>
On Jan 4, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Nigel Roberts <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Brett<br>
<br>
If none, the by-law must be given a literal construction.<br>
<br>
If that were the case, it would be a nullity, since there is no <br>
applicable domestic law that requires a private California corporation <br>
to take account of human rights laws.<br>
<br>
So, there must be at least one such instrument, otherwise (using a <br>
teleological construction) the purpose of the bylaw would be defeated.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 04/01/17 17:19, Schaefer, Brett wrote:<br>
> Niels,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> You misquoted one of the bullets. It should state, “Consider which<br>
> specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments/, if any,/<br>
><br>
> should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human<br>
> Rights Bylaw.”<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Brett<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> BrettSchaefer<br>
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National<br>
> Security and Foreign Policy<br>
> The Heritage Foundation<br>
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
> Washington, DC 20002<br>
> 202-608-6097<br>
> <a href="http://heritage.org">heritage.org</a> <<a href="http://heritage.org/">http://heritage.org/</a>><br>
><br>
> *From:*<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] *On Behalf Of<br>
> *Niels ten Oever<br>
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:41 AM<br>
> *To:* <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
> *Cc:* <a href="mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org">ws2-hr@icann.org</a><br>
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] HR subgroup question to CCWG plenary<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Dear CCWG Plenary,<br>
><br>
> We hope this email finds you all very well. As you all know we shared<br>
> with you the Framework of Interpretation of the Human Rights bylaw.<br>
> After this the Human Rights Subgroup worked on next steps, which led us<br>
> to taking a close look at our mandate and finding that there are<br>
> different ways of interpreting this. This difference stems, in part,<br>
> from the different constructions of our mandate in Annex 6 and in Annex 12.<br>
><br>
> That is why we come to you for guidance to see where we are, and where<br>
> we should go next.<br>
><br>
> In a bit more detail:<br>
><br>
> Paragraph 14 of Annex 6 of the CCWG reads:<br>
><br>
> The Human Rights-related activities to be addressed in Work Stream 2 are:<br>
> • Developing a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw.<br>
> • Considering which specific Human Rights conventions or other<br>
> instruments should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the<br>
> Bylaw.<br>
> • Considering the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to<br>
> develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights.<br>
> • Considering how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted<br>
> to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process, consistent<br>
> with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols.<br>
> • Considering what effect, if any, this Bylaw will have on ICANN’s<br>
> consideration of advice given by the GAC.<br>
> • Considering how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s<br>
> operations are carried out<br>
><br>
> Whereas Paragraph 18 of Annex 12 of the CCWG report reads:<br>
><br>
> 18 To ensure that adding a draft Human Rights Bylaw into the ICANN<br>
> Bylaws does not lead to an expansion of ICANN’s Mission or scope, the<br>
> CCWG-Accountability will develop a designated Framework of<br>
> Interpretation as part of Work Stream 2 and will consider the following<br>
> as it elaborates on the language to be used:<br>
> • Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments<br>
> should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Draft Human<br>
> Rights Bylaw.<br>
> • Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to<br>
> develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to Human Rights.<br>
> • Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how<br>
> these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad<br>
> multistakeholder involvement in the process.<br>
> • Consider what effect, if any, this proposed Bylaw would have on<br>
> ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory<br>
> Committee (GAC).<br>
> • Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations<br>
> are carried out.<br>
> • Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will<br>
> interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures.<br>
><br>
> Annex 6 makes it seem like each of the “bullet points” is a separate<br>
> task, starting with the Framework of Interpretation. On the other hand,<br>
> Annex 12 makes it seem like the “bullet points” are not really separate<br>
> tasks, but only items to be considered as we prepare the Framework of<br>
> Interpretation. This makes a significant difference in how we determine<br>
> what work lies before us, and also how we look at the Framework of<br>
> Interpretation we have completed.<br>
><br>
> In our initial work we focused on providing a Framework of<br>
> Interpretation of the Bylaw, clearly stating how it should be<br>
> interpreted, and we did not focus on how the Bylaw could be<br>
> “operationalized”, even though of course we considered the potential<br>
> consequences this might have.<br>
><br>
> The question is now, what are the next steps? We see different options:<br>
><br>
> 1. We're done. The FoI is developed, and under consideration by the plenary.<br>
> 2. We need to have a second look at the FoI and make potential<br>
> amendments to the FoI to give more guidance based on the considerations<br>
> listed in Annex 6.<br>
> 3. We need to produce a new document that responds directly to each of<br>
> the “bullet points,” which could include examples and recommendations on<br>
> what potential next steps could be<br>
> 4. We need to test specific cases on a hypothetical basis to see<br>
> whether the FoI suffices. (in this regard, hypothetical cases suggested<br>
> by the plenary would be helpful.)<br>
><br>
> We've have made first steps into the direction of step 3, but this led<br>
> us into quite detailed discussions on recommending the use of Human<br>
> Rights Impact Assessments and how and where these could be integrated in<br>
> PDPs and ICANN operations. In these discussions, it felt as though we<br>
> were going into too much detail, and stepping outside of the mandate of<br>
> our Subgroup.<br>
><br>
> 5. A fifth option could be (and this might be a mix between option 1<br>
> and 3) to issue high-level recommendations on how ICANN and the SO’s and<br>
> AC’s could best operationalize the core value contained in the Human<br>
> Rights Bylaw. These recommendations could include (a) chartering a GNSO<br>
> Working Group on Human Rights to consider and recommend how the Bylaw<br>
> should be taken into account in gTLD policy development and<br>
> implementation, and/or (b) chartering Working Groups in each of the<br>
> other SO’s and AC’s for purposes relevant to their remit, and/or (c)<br>
> chartering a new CCWG on Human Rights to specifically consider the steps<br>
> needed to make the Bylaw operational, and provide guidance to each of<br>
> the SO's and AC's on how they could incorporate the CCWG’s output in<br>
> their processes, as well as discussing measures that could be adopted by<br>
> ICANN, the corporation, with respect to its own internal human<br>
> resources, employment, and contracting practices based on the Bylaw.<br>
><br>
> We would like to bring these five options in front of the plenary, and<br>
> we would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these and potentially other<br>
> options.<br>
><br>
> The Human Rights Subgroup wishes you a revitalizing festive season and<br>
> we're greatly looking forward to completing our work in Workstream 2<br>
> with you all in 2017.<br>
><br>
> All the best,<br>
><br>
> The CCWG Accountability Human Rights Subgroup<br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Niels ten Oever<br>
> Head of Digital<br>
><br>
> Article 19<br>
> <a href="http://www.article19.org">www.article19.org</a> <<a href="http://www.article19.org">http://www.article19.org</a>><br>
><br>
> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4<br>
> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Ws2-hr mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ws2-hr mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr</a><br>
</div>
<p></p>
</body>
</html>