[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Recommendation 6 - Human Rights

[Paul Twomey]

+1

The board concern to thinking through third party implications is a 
cautious yet sensible one.   And something we had agreed some time ago 
should be WS 2 work.  We need also to be very clear about ICANN's 
special role - it is not like most NGOs, which do not have a global 
operational responsibility, or which have the ability to withdraw from a 
country or activity without fundamentally undermining their mission.

Paul Twomey

On 2/4/16 8:32 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> +1 to Bruce, Tatiana and Greg.
>
> Am already looking forward to the work in WS2 and would like to thank
> everyone for reaching this consensus.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
> On 02/04/2016 09:51 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>> +1 to Bruce,
>> I thought we already had those discussion regarding what applicable law
>> clause was supposed to mean. Being a lawyer myself, I firmly believe
>> that the agreed text of the bylaw is confirming ICANN's commitment to
>> human rights. The interpretation of this commitment (as it was earlier
>> so well explained by Greg Shatan in one of his last emails on this
>> matter) is a part of work stream 2. If we decide that a reference to
>> UDHR shall be a part of this commitment, the community will propose it
>> in the framework of interpretation. So I consider the agreed bylaw text
>> as the best possible compromise and a huge step forward.
>> I also would like to thank Bruce for the good news and the board for
>> cooperation. This compromise solution really shows that we can find a
>> way forward!
>> Best regards
>> Tatiana
>>
>> On 04/02/16 09:16, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>>> Hello Nigel,
>>>
>>>>>   It sounds nice, and means nothing in terms of committing ICANN to do anything but follow California law, which it is obliged to do anyway.
>>> Well I hope it is  a step forward to note that human rights are part of our core values.    Applicable law could also apply to other locations where ICANN operates - e.g. we have offices and staff that work on multiple locations around the world.   We need to obey the laws that relate to those staff in each country for example - e.g. anti-slavery and anti-discrimination  laws.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>   Why is the ICANN Board scared of agreeing to respect the rights in the UDHR?? It should be proud to set an example to other multistakeholder and private sector organisations.
>>> I think we should focus on actually identifying how to interpret all the various concepts around human rights and create our own framework of interpretation that is relevant to us.   That is the aim of work stream 2 .     For example I don't know anything about UDHR.   I would rather we have a page of text that explains exactly what ICANN is on the hook for beyond applicable law.   We may well look at getting an expert that advises non-government organizations on how best to respect human rights in their operations that can help with the work stream 2 work.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bruce Tonkin
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>

-- 
Dr Paul Twomey
Managing Director
Argo P at cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com