[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 - Human Rights - 1st reading conclusions

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Sun Jan 17 17:58:45 UTC 2016


Hi,

There would no legal difference in respect of the laws they need to obey.

There will be a difference in the set of considerations that could be
brought into consideration at the time of IANA contract renewal.  The
contract renewal is a checkpoint when NTIA can insure that ICANN is
meeting all of its obligations including the various freedoms guaranteed
by the government's HR obligations, not just the legal ones.  rember the
consultations that went on last time.  And remmeber that ICANN had to
fix its application in order to gain approval.  With transition we lose
this checkpoint and this loss needs something to take its place.  In
regard to HR issues, corporate responsibility is the best way to
maintain that commitment. A simple commitment to respect human rights is
the first step toward ICANN accepting its corporate responsibilities on
this and other issues.  Choice A is the closest we were able to get to
making a simple first baby step toward ICANN accepting corporate
responsibilities.

avri

On 17-Jan-16 12:05, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
> The CCWG-Accountability sought legal advice on whether, upon the
> termination of the IANA Functions Contract between ICANN and the NTIA,
> ICANN’s specific Human Rights obligations could be called into
> question. It    
> was found that, upon termination of the Contract, there would be no
> significant impact on ICANN’s Human Rights obligations.  
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
> Directeur Exécutif 
> Fédération Méditerranéenne des associations d'Internet (*FMAI*)
> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>              +216 52 385 114
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>> Le 17 janv. 2016 à 00:14, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> a écrit :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I had understood that much of the opposition expressed by those
>> supporting B had to do with the fear of legal action.  Since that fear
>> seems not to be fact based, I was thinking some of that opposition has
>> been answered.
>>
>> There is also the fact that with the departure of NTIA we have no
>> backstop for the human rights obligations of the open internet without
>> declaring a corporate commitment to human rights.  This is not one of
>> those nice to have Accountability changes made while there is a chance.
>> This is a direct necessity based on losing the governmental backstop,
>> given their obligation for human rights (whatever we think of their
>> implementation of their governmental responsibilities).
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 16-Jan-16 15:59, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>>> Some facts:
>>>
>>>  * it wasn’t only the board who expressed concerns: some other
>>>    comments did
>>>  * on the call, there were different views expressed: some were for
>>>    option A, others for option B and most for option C
>>>  * Option C is a compromise between A and B
>>>
>>>
>>> Other facts:
>>>
>>>  * the issue of Human rights was raised at the beginning of our
>>>    works, and the position of the CCWG members was « since ICANN is
>>>    about names and numbers, and has nothing to do with the content,
>>>    no need to address this issue ».
>>>  * It was raised again I think in Paris meeting, and the decision was
>>>    to address it in work stream 2. and under the insistence of some,
>>>    the CCWG decided to have a very high level mention on the issue in
>>>    the proposal of Work Stream 1.  
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>>> Executive Director
>>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>>> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>>>            +216 52 385 114
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Le 16 janv. 2016 à 20:04, Schaefer, Brett
>>>> <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
>>>> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>
>>>> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Agree with this. In addition to the Board's comments being the focus
>>>> for the rec discussions (at least it appears that way to me) it seems
>>>> like unless a comment is raised during the Adobe it is considered
>>>> resolved. Not all commenters participate in the Adobe chats, but that
>>>> should not mean their comments should be dismissed or downplayed.
>>>>
>>>> __________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> Brett Schaefer
>>>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
>>>> Margaret 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
>>>> <http://heritage.org/> <http://heritage.org/><http://heritage.org/>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 16, 2016, at 3:11 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Was also noticing how little time we spend stepping through all the
>>>> comments and answering them. Was wondering how we were coming to
>>>> consensus before having done so.
>>>>
>>>> Don't wee need to have a response for all the comments on this draft?
>>>> Given that we are using the process we are using, perhaps for each
>>>> recommendation we are approaching consensus on we should check against
>>>> the comments to see what we may be missing. Each recommendation as it
>>>> nears completion could be taken by a few volunteers and checked against
>>>> the comments on that recommendation. These small teams could take
>>>> responsibility for drafting the responses as well.
>>>>
>>>> I do not dispute the importance of coming to agreement with the Board,
>>>> but we must also deal with the rest of the comments in an proper
>>>> manner. Especially on areas where finding an agreement point with the
>>>> Board is challenging, the comments of the community can give us
>>>> direction and an sasist.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15-Jan-16 18:50, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>> I agree and am concerned about the degree of automatic deference and
>>>>> preference for board desired outcomes over CCWG - Accountability
>>>>> participants and public comments in the organization of these
>>>>> discussions. For some reason, these discussions seem to each focus
>>>>> on the board objectives and comments and almost no attention to the
>>>>> comments of any other stakeholder. Let’s not forget many members of
>>>>> the public filed comments last month, expecting them to be discussed
>>>>> and incorporated. But it looks like the only concerns placed before
>>>>> us for consideration are the board comments/objectives. Let’s not
>>>>> forget the others!
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 15, 2016, at 9:03 AM, Niels ten Oever
>>>>>> <lists at nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>
>>>>>> <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net><mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear co-chairs (an all),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am quite surprised by your proposal to invite members and board to
>>>>>> consider option C since WP4 and CCWG achieved consensus on option A,
>>>>>> which was reinforced by the independent lawyers advice. I really
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> think this work should be disregarded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ICANN lawyers did not provide examples, case-law or other
>>>>>> documents
>>>>>> to outline any risk. So even though I am very willing to discuss,
>>>>>> I see
>>>>>> no reason to only consider option C and I am very surprised that
>>>>>> you as
>>>>>> co-chairs argue for that option even though consensus was reached
>>>>>> earlier on option A. As I said in my previous email, it is not
>>>>>> reasonable to consider option C before we agree that we won't proceed
>>>>>> with the option A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Niels
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/15/2016 05:26 PM, Alice Jansen wrote:
>>>>>>> _Sent on behalf of CoChairs _
>>>>>>> _
>>>>>>> _
>>>>>>> Please find below the main conclusions of our deliberations during
>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>> #76. The updated document is attached.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.Agreement to rely on target dates instead of hard deadlines,
>>>>>>> in line
>>>>>>> with general approach agreed for WS2
>>>>>>> 2. Discussed comments (including Icann Board, RrSG…) requesting
>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>> inclusion of human rights language into the bylaws be delayed
>>>>>>> until the
>>>>>>> proposed framework of interpretation was completed or even only be
>>>>>>> considered in Work Stream 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a.Independent lawyer input has been provided and concludes : While
>>>>>>> the addition of the proposed human rights bylaw provision should not
>>>>>>> increase the exposure of ICANN to legal liability, we recognize that
>>>>>>> special interest groups and individuals might seek to bring
>>>>>>> non-meritorious claims, but the risk of meritless claims is already
>>>>>>> a risk that ICANN faces.
>>>>>>> b. Board clarified that concern included risk that IRP would
>>>>>>> interpret the Bylaw language and create “case law policy” while the
>>>>>>> FoI is finalized.
>>>>>>> c. Consider Lawyer input suggestion as follows :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i. “ /expressly limiting the jurisdiction of any internal
>>>>>>> dispute resolution systems within ICANN (such as the IRP) to
>>>>>>> preclude claims of human rights violations that are not grounded
>>>>>>> in a specific violation of an applicable law”./
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Members and Board are invited to consider whether option c)
>>>>>>> could be
>>>>>>> an acceptable way forward
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a. Confirm recommendation bylaw language as part of WS1, despite
>>>>>>> concerns expressed
>>>>>>> b. Defer bylaw language adoption to WS2, when FoI is finalized
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> c. Adopt adjusted bylaw language as part of WS1 to clarify that it
>>>>>>> can only be enforced or used in an IRP once the FoI is approved
>>>>>>> (Such as : “This articles becomes effective 30 days after approval
>>>>>>> of the FoI…”).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Second reading is planned for Tuesday, 19 January.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mathieu, Thomas, León
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>
>>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Niels ten Oever
>>>>>> Head of Digital
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Article 19
>>>>>> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org/>
>>>>>> <http://www.article19.org/><http://www.article19.org
>>>>>> <http://www.article19.org/>
>>>>>> <http://www.article19.org/>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>>>>>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>
>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>
>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus%3Chttps://www.avast.com/antivirus%3E>
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus%3Chttps://www.avast.com/antivirus%3E>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3Chttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community%3E>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto: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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list