[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mission statement and human rights
Paul Twomey
paul.twomey at argopacific.com
Fri Jan 29 22:40:09 UTC 2016
+1 This is not an easy fit and does need careful and exhaustive
working through in Work Stream 2
Paul T
On 1/30/16 8:01 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> The "respect/protect/enforce" rubric being used here is lifted from
> the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (aka the Ruggie
> Principles), which are meant to implement the UN's "protect, respect
> and remedy" framework.
> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf
>
> In that division of responsibilities, it is the role of governments to
> protect against human rights abuses and to engage in enforcement
> (i.e., "prevent, investigate, punish and redress such abuse through
> effective policies, legislation, regulations and adjudication") in
> order to protect against human rights abuses.
>
> Meanwhile, business enterprises have the role of respecting human
> rights, i.e., they should avoid infringing on the internationally
> recognized human rights of others and should address adverse human
> rights impacts with which they are involved.
>
> That is not to say that ICANN should adopt those exact definitions or
> that ICANN should adopt the Ruggie Principles at all. There have been
> concerns expressed regarding how a number of provisions fit ICANN's
> role, in particular concern about the second prong of "respect":
> addressing adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved,
> since that could obligate ICANN to take actions with regard to all of
> its contractual counterparties and even with regard to ccTLDs.
>
> One could argue that ICANN does not fit the mould of a "business
> enterprise" at all, and that it's role should be different from
> "respect", at least as laid out in the Ruggie Principles. In other
> words, mapping the "respect/protect/enforce" concepts against ICANN's
> Bylaws and activities may not work so well.
>
> There are others who would say that the Ruggie Principles work quite
> well and that any modifications are minor and don't disqualify Ruggie
> as the starting point for considering ICANN's obligations.
>
> This is all food for thought for Work Stream 2, I guess.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Nigel Roberts
> <nigel at channelisles.net <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>> wrote:
>
> MAYBE, just maybe, we can put this to bed.
>
> Can you construe (deconstruct) the latest language for me, the way
> you see it, please?
>
> As an aside, whilst I have no issue with the word enforcement,
> since ICANN will not employ blue helmets, I am not sure that IP
> interests would be that keen on relieving ICANN of its obligation
> to protect the right to property (on matters properly within mission).
>
> On 28/01/16 17:51, Greg Shatan 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 <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>
> <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto:avri at acm.org>
> <mailto:avri at acm.org <mailto: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
> <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
>
>
>
>
> ---
> 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>
> <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>
> <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
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160130/a5896122/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list