Greg, Your comments and a second read, I would have to withdraw. They are indeed different things as you rightly point out. rd On Apr 16, 2017 12:41 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Rudy, That's not really what's happening here. First, the Board is proposing an assessment of the impact of the Human Rights Bylaw, not a "human rights impact assessment." Two completely different things. This could just as easily be an assessment of the impact of changing ICANN's fiscal year. So, I think you are mixing up impact assessments here. Second, there is no "principle of WSG2 HR's framework of HRIA." I'm not exactly sure what "WSG2 HR" means, but if it refers to the subgroup, the subgroup document only states "Supporting Organizations could consider defining and incorporating Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) in their respective policy development processes." That is neither a "framework of HRIA" nor is it a "principle." Even if it were, it would obviously be inappropriate and premature for the Board to "accept" anything that had only been considered at the subgroup level and did not have the approval of the full CCWG. As such there is nothing to "work across the ICANN eco stystem." To the extent the question is how could HRIAs "work across the ICANN eco system," I would say the answer is in our considerations document, which leaves the possibility of any application of HRIAs to policy development in the hands of the ICANN structures tasked with managing policy development -- the Supporting Organizations (see quote above). Presumably, the same principle of bottom-up consideration would apply to the ACs as well -- but all of this is really a question beyond the remit of the Subgroup or the CCWG. Best regards, Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:

Stepping back, In my thinking, it is a great step forward for the icann board to accept the principle of WSG2 HR 's framework of HRIA. so how is it going to work across the ICANN eco system? rd

On Apr 13, 2017 6:57 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:

...

Sounds as though Greg agrees with Seun as to “ICANN organization” meaning staff. I certainly don’t blame the Board for asking about the impact of the FOI - HR.

Regarding Greg’s reminder as to “stress tests”, I don’t see how an FOI-HR impact analysis can avoid the issue of dispute resolution mechanisms and the availability of Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review Process for asserting a violation of the Core Value. These formal mechanisms are very clearly invoked, i.e. “no RFR or IRP based on the HR Core Value until the FOI is adopted” (see Section 27.2 pasted below).

One “impact” question is whether there is an Empowered Community challenge available if the EC wants to “Initiate a Community Reconsideration Request, mediation or a Community IRP” pursuant to Section 6.2 (a) (viii) of the attachment. And how does this figure into the Annex D EC Mechanism? How does an EC RFR or IRP differ from other RFRs and IRPs? Can both types be maintained at that same time? Could there be conflicting RFRs and IRPs resulting from Board decisions, e.g. based on different Human Rights claims? Seems as though ICANN Legal will have to be involved in this analysis.

So here’s a stress test: - The Board proposes a budget item for a Human Rights Impact Assessment (since they have the Core Value and theoretically will have adopted the FOI). Staff may want to consider the following in relation to the potential “impact” of a proposed HRIA (depending on cost and scope of same and given “no cherry-picking”):

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PROJECTS/Resources/40940- 1331068268558/HRIA_Web.pdf

[image: cid:image003.png@01D2B466.72809920]

*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office

520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

[image: cid:image002.png@01D2B46E.80B36B50]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

*From:* McAuley, David [mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com] *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:19 PM *To:* gregshatanipc@gmail.com; seun.ojedeji@gmail.com *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; ws2-hr@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights

[Part of string deleted to make shorter]

This makes sense to me, Greg, especially the last bullet – would be nice to hear from Board on their assessment (presumably not yet stated) on the “Considerations” portion of the unified subgroup document.

Best regards,

David

David McAuley

International Policy Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>

*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:10 PM *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; <ws2-hr@icann.org> < ws2-hr@icann.org>; McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-hr] Letter from the Board on Human Rights

I'm fairly confident that this is what the letter is saying:

The Board also expresses its support for the additional efforts *[i.e., the considerations document]* to complete a review of the items noted in WS1 Annex 12 to ensure they have been fully covered in the draft FOI, and to further inform the development of additional implementation recommendations to accompany the FOI *[someone is supposed to develop additional implementation recommendations]*.

As part of those implementation recommendations, the Board is asking ICANN organization *[i.e., staff]* to conduct an impact assessment to understand how the implementation of the recommendations would impact the organization. *[It appears that the staff is developing these implementation recommendations.]* The Board encourages the CCWG *[i.e., this Subgroup, primarily] *to provide examples of how the FoI is to be implemented and the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact to assist *[the staff] *with this work. This will be an important point of information for the whole of the ICANN community *[i.e, the CCWG and the rest of the community via public comments and SO/AC approvals]* in their deliberations of the final recommendations.

In other words:

- The Board knows that we're working on the Considerations document. - The Considerations document will be used to develop implementation recommendations to accompany the FoI - Staff is developing these implementation recommendations.

- As part of that work, Staff is doing an impact assessment.

- CCWG (really, *this subgroup*) needs to create *examples* of (1) how the FoI is to be implemented and (2) the areas of work that the FoI is expected to impact. - CCWG needs to give those examples to the staff,

- Staff will use these example in doing the impact assessment.

- CCWG also needs to make these examples available to the entire ICANN community.

- Public comments and SO/ACs should take these examples, as well as the implementation recommendations (including the impact assessment) into account when deciding whether to approve the final recommendations.

- Based on Niels' followup, at this point, rather than working on examples now, we can wait until we hear from the Board (and others) in the public comment on the initial recommendations.

Does that make sense?

(With regard to "examples," it should not be forgotten that the CCWG Charter says "In order to facilitate evaluation and adoption of its proposals, the CCWG-Accountability is expected to provide a detailed description on how its proposals would provide an adequate level of resistance to contingencies (“stress tests”), *within the scope of each Work Stream*." (emphasis added))

Greg

-

*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com

------------------------------

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr