Whether ICANN is non-profit or not is beside the point.  That is not the issue.

This is also not a binary issue.  In the US, the Republicans tried to make their attempts at dismantling "Obamacare" into a binary issue -- "Either you support repealing and replacing Obamacare or you support socialism."   It didn't work (footnote: a lot of Americans are really scared of socialism....)

Making it into a binary issue is fine rhetoric but it gets us nowhere.  Trying to put a heightened commitment to the UNGP into this document is not a question of "supporting and promoting international standards of human rights" or not.

Nor does that help resolve the concerns that brought us to the position that some would like to change.

Greg

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
From a human rights perspective it really doesn't matter that whether a business is not-for-profit or not. Qualifying it in this way is mealy-mouthed.

Especially as it has no legal or other effect

Some really terrible human rights abuses have been committed by non-profit orgnaisations. Even the UN.

See http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/07/stop-peacekeeper-abuse-170730125107601.html

ICANN either supports and promotes international standards of human rights or it doesn't.

Which is it?



Nigel

On 28/09/17 16:28, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
>From a human rights perspective it really doesn't matter that whethe a business is not-for-profit or not. Qualifying it in this way is mealy-mouthed.

Especially as it has no legal or other effect

Some really terrible human rights abuses have been committed by non-profit orgnaisations. Even the UN.

See http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/07/stop-peacekeeper-abuse-170730125107601.html

ICANN either supports and promotes international standards of human rights or it doesn't.

Which is it?



Nigel

I do not see the problem with including a statement such as this.

Perhaps I would indicate that it was a not for profit business instead
of a business and would insert an "as appropriate" after "as a useful
guide".

But I think mentioning this among the international instruments is a
good idea.

avri


On 28-Sep-17 08:21, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:

Dear all,

 
Further to my Email below, I would like to share with you the
following proposal that would constitute in my view an acceptable
outcome of the public consultation on the Framework of Interpretation,
and build on the wording proposals made by Switzerland in its public
comment input (see attached) and the exchanges had thereafter in the
Subgroup.

 
Specifically, I would like to propose that the following paragraph on
page 6 (under “internationally recognized human rights”) be reworded
as follows (changes in red):

 
“/By committing to one or more of these international instruments,
nation states are expected to embed human rights in their national
legislation*. */

*/The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are
relevant for business organizations. Insofar ICANN the Organization is
concerned, it should consider, as a business, the UN Guiding
Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a useful guide when
applying the Human Rights Core Value./**“*

 
The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights (UNGP) are
the universally accepted voluntary standard for business
organizations. Therefore, we feel that it should be mentioned under
the instruments regarding “internationally recognized human rights”.
In order to avoid any extension of the UNGP to the non-business
elements of ICANN (SO/ACs) there is specific mention that the UNGP
would be relevant only for ICANN the Organization. In addition, the
mention is constrained to having to “consider” the UNGP “as a useful
guide” – which, in our view, eliminates any perceived danger of
creating any obligation whatsoever through this mention.

 
I hope that this compromise proposal may be positively considered by
all of you. Please note that it is made only by me with the aim of
arriving at a common ground and that it has not been possible to
coordinate due to time constraints with the other participants joining
the dissent.

 
Best regards

 
Jorge

 
 
*Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag
von *Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
*Gesendet:* Montag, 25. September 2017 15:34
*An:* turcotte.bernard@gmail.com; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September
Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2

 
Dear all,

 
Regarding *agenda point 8* and specifically the *dissenting opinion*
attached to the Report from the Subgroup dealing with the Framework of
Interpretation (FOI) of the Human Rights Core Value (see p. 2 of the
attached document), which I have filed together with a number of
colleagues, I would like to share some thoughts and a suggested path
forward with the CCWG Plenary before the calls scheduled to discuss this.

 
The main point of the dissent is, in my view, that we feel that the
public comment period showed the existence of two schools of thought:
some that favored maintaining the text sent to public comment “as is”
(ALAC to a certain extent, and a number of different GNSO
constituencies) and those (UK, BRZ, and CH) proposing some steps
forward, especially in the recognition of the UN Guiding Principles
(Ruggie Principles).

 
However, again in our view, the discussions in the Subgroup did not
yield a properly balanced result, which would have reflected at least
some if not all of the positions and proposals made by the named
Governments. This relates in particular, _that the FOI text should
make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most
relevant voluntary international standard_. In our view, the Subgroup
did not undertake an inclusive enough effort to determine if a
compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this
position of the three governments.

 
Therefore, I would like to _suggest that the CCWG Plenary could decide
that some additional efforts to reaching a broader consensus on this
important issue should be made_ – a broader consensus that could be
more inclusive of all views expressed during the public comment period.

 
Hence, I would _suggest that the CCWG decides that the Report together
with the dissent are sent back to the Subgroup with the request that a
broader consensus solution is quickly sought within the coming e.g. 2
weeks after the Plenary call_.

 
I hope this way to proceed may seem reasonable to you and obtain your
support during the abovementioned call. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have and look forward to your feedback.

 
For my part I’ll try hard to attend the Wednesday call, but I’m
(physically) attending at the same time /the UN CSTD Working Group on
Enhanced Cooperation/. Hence, I would be very thankful if this issue
could be discussed on the Thursday call instead if possible.

 
Kind regards

 
Jorge

 
 
*Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag
von *Bernard Turcotte
*Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. September 2017 18:05
*An:* Accountability Cross Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>
*Betreff:* [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September
Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2

 
All,

 
Please fins below and attached the agenda for the 27-28 September plenary.

 
As noted in an earlier email the Co-Chairs do not believe the plenary
can get through all of these materials in a single two hour session
and that it is imperative we do so this week given the timing
constraints we are working under. As such an additional 2 hour plenary
session has been added 28 September 1900 UTC (the original plenary
meeting scheduled for 27 September 1300 UTC still stands).

 
Also please note that given the large volume of documents we will be
including these in two separate emails to avoid size limit issues for
participants.

 
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or
problems with the documents.

 
 
Bernard Turcotte

ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2

 
*Agenda for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary of 27 and 28 September*

* *

1.     Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior

2.     Review of Agenda

3.     Administration

3.1.Review timeline.

3.2.Reminder of 27 October face to face in Abu Dhabi.

3.3.Reminder of High Interest sessions in Abu Dhabi

4.     Legal Committee Update

4.1.​         Question sent to ICANN Legal on Ombudsman recommendation
8 regarding the independence of the proposed Ombuds Advisory Panel
(questions sent directly to ICANN legal on approval of Co-chairs).

4.2.Transparency – at the 13 September meeting of the sub-group
updated language for recommendations 2, 15 and 16 were considered.
ICANN Legal advised that they would consider these and provide written
feedback to the sub-group.

5.     Point on Quorum (held over from last plenary)

6.     Second Reading of the draft recommendations of the Diversity
sub-group.

       o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Diversity-DrafRecommendations-20170927
         (attached - same document as distributed to the 30 August plenary)

7.     First reading of the final recommendations of the SOAC
Accountability sub-group.

       o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-20170927 (attached)
       o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-RedLine-20170927
         (attached)
       o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-AnalysisandResponsetoPublicComments-20170927
         (attached)

8.     First reading of the final recommendations of the Human Rights
sub-group.

       o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRight-FinalReportWithAdditions-20170927
         (attached)
       o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRights-PublicConsultation-May2017-Responses
         (attached)

9.     First reading of the draft recommendation of the Ombuds
sub-group (please note that the final report of the external review is
provided as a separate file due to size issues)

       o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendations-20170927
         (attached in second email)
       o CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-ExternalReview-Final (attached
         in second email)

10.First reading of the draft recommendation of the Staff
Accountability sub-group.

       o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-20170927V1.6
         (attached in second email)
       o CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-TrnasmissionLetter-20170927
         (attached in second email)

11.AOB

12.​Next Plenaries

12.1.               Thursday 28 September 19:00UTC​

12.2.               Wednesday 4 October 0500 UTC (optional but please
schedule)

12.3.               Wednesday 11 October 1300 UTC (optional but please
schedule)

12.4.               Wednesday 18 October 1900UTC

13.Adjournment

 
 
 


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community