[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Recommendation 6 - Human Rights
Dr. Tatiana Tropina
t.tropina at mpicc.de
Thu Feb 4 15:53:26 UTC 2016
Absolutely agree with Paul.
After I read the rationale, which the board provided for modification of
the bylaw language (in the PDF document attached to Bruce's email), I
understood better the board's concerns about third party implications. I
realised that the language we proposed (as Chinese wall against claims
to "to enforce") could be, according to the board statement, interpreted
in a different way - or at least someone can try to do so. While I can
not fully agree with this position, I can respect this opinion and can
admit that this is a sensitive issue, which requires further
consideration. Thus, I have to agree with the proposed modification for
the sake of finding the middle ground.
From our communications with the board (Bruce's last emails) I can
figure out that the board agrees that the question of which human rights
are applicable to the ICANN (and, thus, which standards, etc.) shall be
an issue for consideration in the WS2, so we are on the same page here.
This was the initial idea in any case: to have a commitment in the bylaw
and to interpret in in WS2. Agree with Paul that we have to be clear
about ICANN's special role - this is why we need WS2 on the first place.
All in all, though I am not crazily happy with the proposed language
(but this is what constructive approach means, I assume), I think that
this bylaw together with further board's statement can in a good way
outline ICANN's commitment to human rights and frame our work in WS2.
On 04/02/16 15:31, Paul Twomey wrote:
> 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.
>> 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
>>> 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.
>>>> Bruce Tonkin
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community