[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mission statement and human rights

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Jan 29 12:24:37 UTC 2016


People playing with "words"
"Protect and enforce" versus"respect"
What is meant by these differentiation?
Tks
Kavousd


Sent from my iPhone

> On 28 Jan 2016, at 18:51, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Nigel,
> 
> I have to disagree with your interpretation of the proposed bylaw.  The "applicable law" restriction only applies to ICANN's obligation (if any) to "protect" and "enforce" human rights.  It does not apply to ICANN's obligation to "respect" human rights.  As such, ICANN would be required to take into account human rights from the posture of "respecting" them.
> 
> What exactly does that mean?  Well, that's what will be determined in WS2.  Avri believes that it would include a human rights impact assessment.  Is she right?  Wait for WS2.  Some think the Ruggie Principles should apply, while others believe that there are significant problems with that idea.  Who is right?  Wait for WS2.  Is this intended to change how ICANN operates (including policy development) or is just a backstop to prevent ICANN from backsliding from its current level of commitment (arguably enforced by the NTIA relationship)?  Wait for WS2.  Are sequels better than the original or do they tend to be unimaginative, bloody and trite?  Wait for WS2.
> 
> Greg
> 
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
>> But do you want a cleverly drafted by-law that guarantees that human rights are not required to be taken into account (whilst appearing to say the contrary), or a word-is-my-bond committment from the current Board, who are at least, a lot more trustworthy than some Boards that there were heretofore?
>> 
>> You can only pick one.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 28/01/16 17:25, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> The problem with a firm commitment by the Board is that it  something
>>> that can be undone or changed by a future Board with ease and at their
>>> will.  Unlike a bylaw which involves a multistakeholder process.
>>> 
>>> Without the bylaw, there is no guarantee.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>>> On 28-Jan-16 11:21, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>>>> HR should be referenced in intermediate Bylaws and drafted at WS2. Based on our dis discussions and REC . once FOI is ready the final legal  text shall  be approved and included in the Definitive Bylaws. In the meantime Board,s firm commitment once approved by CCWG shall apply
>>>> Kabouss .
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>>> On 28 Jan 2016, at 16:33, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 28-Jan-16 09:25, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 02:05:26PM +0000, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>> ICANN must simply respect human rights. That's it.
>>>>>> I wish I knew what this is supposed to mean for ICANN action, though.
>>>>>> I'm trying to imagine something where ICANN would act differently in
>>>>>> the presence or absence of the bylaw, and I've been unable to come up
>>>>>> with anything.
>>>>> As I have mentioned before, for me the prime issue is that human rights
>>>>> impact analysis be done as part of the PDP process as opposed to just
>>>>> waiting to see if some government agency slaps our wrist afterwards for
>>>>> not having considered the impact of, e.g., freedom of expression or an
>>>>> open internet.  At this point we just do stuff and then wait to see if
>>>>> NTIA, or any other federal agency, or the GAC lets us know that we have
>>>>> messed up.  Requiring that we respect Human Rights includes it being in
>>>>> scope as a consideration that is understood and discussed when policy is
>>>>> made and considered for approval.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Without the bylaw such considerations remain out of scope in a future
>>>>> where there is no backstop for our actions.   i believe that taking on
>>>>> this responsibility is our only reliable response to the NTIA
>>>>> requirement.  And I believe that the fears of such a bylaw have been
>>>>> shown to be emotional and not fact based.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> (That's also, I suppose, why I don't really have an
>>>>>> opinion about what ought to be done here, except that we should come
>>>>>> to a speedy conclusion so that the document can ship and we can get
>>>>>> the transition over with.)
>>>>> I see this as a gating issue.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Though I do not think our work can ever be called speedy, even if we
>>>>> were to reach consensus this week.
>>>>> And this is just the start of the transition, unless you also believe
>>>>> that implementation and  WS2 are not part of the transition.
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160129/41611c20/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list