Nigel, I'll give it a shot: Within its Mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized Human Rights. ICANN would be obligated to respect internationally recognized Human Rights, but only to the extent consistent with its mission. Respect might be defined at least in part according to the Ruggie principles, i.e., avoid infringing on the internationally recognized human rights of others), but that is going to require work in Work Stream 2. Again, if we use Ruggie, "internationally recognized Human Rights" would mean "at a minimum, as those expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work." The reference to the ILO Declaration shows a bit of a mis-fit with ICANN as a business enterprise, since Ruggie is aimed primarily at business's relationship with employees, supply chain, etc., and may not fit so well with an organization whose "product" is technical coordination and the implementation of global policy set by non-employee stakeholders. So this might be good for ICANN's overworked policy staff! Of course, that is a Work Steam 2 discussion.... This commitment shall not in any way create an obligation for ICANN, or any entity having a relationship with ICANN, to protect or enforce Human Rights beyond what may be required by applicable law. The key here is that it does not "create an obligation" for ICANN. In other words, it doesn't add any new "protection or enforcement" obligations for ICANN. However, there is nothing in this language that is in any way preventative, nor does it take away (or "relieve") any obligations ICANN may have -- whether in law, ICANN policy, or in contract. As such, it does not prevent ICANN from choosing to do anything within its mission that could be viewed as protecting or enforcing Human Rights regardless of whether its part of applicable law. (I'll save my response on the "applicable law" discussion for a different email.) This sentence also acknowledges that ICANN does have an obligation to follow all applicable laws (including those that protect Human Rights). Ruggie classifies "protecting" and "enforcing" as inherent the powers (and duties) of government, not of a private company. In explaining "protecting" Human Rights, Ruggie refers to a duty to "prevent, investigate, punish and redress [Human Rights] abuse through effective policies, legislation, regulations and adjudication." This implies that "protecting and enforcing" is not merely doing something that might qualify as protecting, enforcing or preventing, etc. Human Rights; it is using the power of the state to do so. (The rest of the Ruggie definition is even more oriented toward what states can do.) Of course, a private company can (and should) try to "prevent [Human Rights] abuse" in its workplace "through effective policies." If I follow Ruggie's logic, that would still be considered "respecting" Human Rights and not protecting or enforcing Human Rights. As such, if you follow Ruggie literally, it could be said that ICANN (not having the power of the state) could not "protect or enforce" Human Rights even if it tried. Of course, ICANN has powers that are different from those of a typical "business enterprise." And "protect and enforce" can be construed more broadly than Ruggie does, so that things businesses do could be called "protecting" and "enforcing." In particular, this does not create any additional obligation for ICANN to respond to or consider any complaint, request, or demand seeking the enforcement of Human Rights by ICANN. This is intended to insulate ICANN from claims that the new Bylaw creates a new job for ICANN -- Human Rights "enforcer." Again, ICANN could "enforce" Human Rights, if it chose to do so, and if you don't read "enforce" so narrowly that it is only the power of a sovereign state. (If you do read "enforce" narrowly, ICANN couldn't "enforce" anything even if it tried, since it is a private entity -- but that gets us back to the issue that ICANN is not a typical "business enterprise".) This Bylaw provision will not enter into force until a Framework of Interpretation is developed as part of “Work Stream 2” by the CCWG-Accountability or another Cross Community Working Group chartered for such purpose by one or more Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees. One could say this means the Bylaw is merely symbolic, and does nothing until the FoI is developed and adopted, and is itself "in force." However, it does a little more than that, for better or worse -- it creates a presumption that the particular words of the Bylaw are the rights words for the Bylaw, regardless of where Work Stream 2 takes us. So, if the work of the CCWG-WS2 concludes that these words have "issues" and we'd all be better off with variations, additions, subtractions or wholesale changes, it will be a bit of an uphill battle to remove the "not-yet-in-force-but-already-adopted" language and replace it with "new and improved" language. It may also tend to force WS2 to try and deal with these words and make the best of it, rather than coming out at the end of the process with both a FoI and a matching bylaw. But c'est la vie.... ICANN shall support the establishment and work of such a Group to facilitate development of the Framework of Interpretation as promptly as possible. To paraphrase Warren Zevon, "Give us lawyers, guns and money." Hope that helps, and is not too stultifying. Some may disagree with some of what I've said, but hey! that's what Work Stream 2 is for. [I should add that the usual caveat applies, as it always does (this is not legal advice, this does not form a lawyer-client relationship, (but feel free to send money), etc.).] Greg On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@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@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@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@acm.org <mailto:avri@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@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@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@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community