Board comments on Recommendation 6 - Human Rights
Hello All, In the spirit of the compromise throughout the CCWG proceedings, the Board is modifying its position, and is supportive of inserting a commitment to respect human rights into the ICANN Bylaws as follows: "Within its Core Values, ICANN will commit to respect internationally recognized Human Rights as required by applicable law. This provision 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 Bylaw provision will not enter into force until (1) a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights (FOI-HR) is developed by the CCWG-Accountability (or another Cross Community Working Group chartered for such purpose by one or more Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees) as a consensus recommendation in Work Stream 2 (including Chartering Organizations' approval) and (2) the FOI-HR is approved by the ICANN Board using the same process and criteria it has committed to use to consider the Work Stream 1 recommendations." Rationale: The clause on the timing of the effective date of the Bylaws provision addressed many, though not all, of the Board's timing concerns. There were still significant concerns regarding some of the other detail, including possible interpretations that could impose human rights responsibilities on those with whom ICANN does business, or whether there are things that ICANN should affirmatively be doing today, in addition to compliance with law. One of the most pressing concerns that remained with the language was on the potential impact on external entities. The Board remained concerned that the CCWG's attempt to exclude reach to "entit[ies] having a relationship with ICANN", could actually be interpreted in a manner that increases - not insulates - the reach of this provision. When ICANN is challenged for conduct alleged to be in violation of applicable laws on human rights, that that challenge could also reach third parties for alleged failures to protect or enforce human rights within applicable law. This could reach entities with or without contracts, and many of which (including ICANN) have no enforcement power when it comes to the law. This is a potential path to placing an affirmative (and out of mission) obligation to police those with whom ICANN has relationships for potential failures to protect or enforce human rights. This language could leave the door open for those doing business with ICANN to be held to, for example, the applicable laws in the USA or another place where ICANN is found to do business. The applicable law is not defined as it applies to entities with relationships with ICANN, nor is that the type of language normally included in Bylaws. The Board supports the removal of the language that causes it concern, while allowing the CCWG to move forward with a recommendation to include a commitment in the Bylaws that ICANN treats human rights as a core value that guides the decisions and actions of ICANN:. We hope this compromise can allow this issue to be closed. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG
Bruce With respect, again, there is no applicable law requiring ICANN to respect human rights since the only applicable laws (whether domestic law or international law) apply ONLY to governments and public authorities, so this By-Law is an effective nullity. It sounds nice, and means nothing in terms of committing ICANN to do anything but follow California law, which is is obliged to do anyway. Why is the ICANN Board scared of agreeing to respect the rights in the UDHR?? It should be proud to set an example to other multistakeholder and private sector organisations. On 04/02/16 07:33, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
t to respect internationally recognized Human Rights as required by applicable law. This provision does not create any additiona
Hello Nigel,
It sounds nice, and means nothing in terms of committing ICANN to do anything but follow California law, which it is obliged to do anyway.
Well I hope it is a step forward to note that human rights are part of our core values. Applicable law could also apply to other locations where ICANN operates - e.g. we have offices and staff that work on multiple locations around the world. We need to obey the laws that relate to those staff in each country for example - e.g. anti-slavery and anti-discrimination laws.
Why is the ICANN Board scared of agreeing to respect the rights in the UDHR?? It should be proud to set an example to other multistakeholder and private sector organisations.
I think we should focus on actually identifying how to interpret all the various concepts around human rights and create our own framework of interpretation that is relevant to us. That is the aim of work stream 2 . For example I don't know anything about UDHR. I would rather we have a page of text that explains exactly what ICANN is on the hook for beyond applicable law. We may well look at getting an expert that advises non-government organizations on how best to respect human rights in their operations that can help with the work stream 2 work. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
I think the point is here, what does ICANN do if the local law detracts from or diminishes UDHR? Not if the local law improves on them. greetings, el On 2016-02-04 10:16, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Nigel,
It sounds nice, and means nothing in terms of committing ICANN to do anything but follow California law, which it is obliged to do anyway.
Well I hope it is a step forward to note that human rights are part of our core values. Applicable law could also apply to other locations where ICANN operates - e.g. we have offices and staff that work on multiple locations around the world. We need to obey the laws that relate to those staff in each country for example - e.g. anti-slavery and anti-discrimination laws.
Why is the ICANN Board scared of agreeing to respect the rights in the UDHR?? It should be proud to set an example to other multistakeholder and private sector organisations.
I think we should focus on actually identifying how to interpret all the various concepts around human rights and create our own framework of interpretation that is relevant to us. That is the aim of work stream 2 . For example I don't know anything about UDHR. I would rather we have a page of text that explains exactly what ICANN is on the hook for beyond applicable law. We may well look at getting an expert that advises non-government organizations on how best to respect human rights in their operations that can help with the work stream 2 work.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Bruce We aren't that far apart. I agree with your proposed courses of action in order to onboard a Human Rights dimension to ICANN. It's the current wording that is wrong. What I most disagree with is the self-serving drafting that makes it SOUND like we are saying "human rights are part of our core values" which when construed legally actually, and clearly says "human rights are NOT part of our core values". On 04/02/16 08:16, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Nigel,
It sounds nice, and means nothing in terms of committing ICANN to do anything but follow California law, which it is obliged to do anyway.
Well I hope it is a step forward to note that human rights are part of our core values. Applicable law could also apply to other locations where ICANN operates - e.g. we have offices and staff that work on multiple locations around the world. We need to obey the laws that relate to those staff in each country for example - e.g. anti-slavery and anti-discrimination laws.
Why is the ICANN Board scared of agreeing to respect the rights in the UDHR?? It should be proud to set an example to other multistakeholder and private sector organisations.
I think we should focus on actually identifying how to interpret all the various concepts around human rights and create our own framework of interpretation that is relevant to us. That is the aim of work stream 2 . For example I don't know anything about UDHR. I would rather we have a page of text that explains exactly what ICANN is on the hook for beyond applicable law. We may well look at getting an expert that advises non-government organizations on how best to respect human rights in their operations that can help with the work stream 2 work.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Nigel,
and clearly says "human rights are NOT part of our core values".
I don't think that is quite right. Applicable law actually covers some human rights (e.g. slavery, torture) - it just may not cover all the human rights that you would like to be considered by ICANN. There are some human rights that clearly don't apply to ICANN - ie we don't have arrest powers so arbitrary arrest clearly doesn't apply, nor do we charge people with penal offences, or confer nationality on people. It is determining the relevant human rights that should apply to ICANN beyond the basic set that is in applicable law that is the subject for work stream 2. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Exactly, and in several ways. So we should not narrow this in WS1. el On 2016-02-04 11:02, Bruce Tonkin wrote: [...]
It is determining the relevant human rights that should apply to ICANN beyond the basic set that is in applicable law that is the subject for work stream 2. [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Dear Bruce We had two alternatives 1. The current agreed text 2. An ICANN COMMITMENT RESOLUTION test should refer to application/ respect of HR by ICANN , endorsed by CCWG You promised to work on the second one? Where is the Commitment Board,s Resolution? Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Feb 2016, at 10:02, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Nigel,
and clearly says "human rights are NOT part of our core values".
I don't think that is quite right.
Applicable law actually covers some human rights (e.g. slavery, torture) - it just may not cover all the human rights that you would like to be considered by ICANN.
There are some human rights that clearly don't apply to ICANN - ie we don't have arrest powers so arbitrary arrest clearly doesn't apply, nor do we charge people with penal offences, or confer nationality on people.
It is determining the relevant human rights that should apply to ICANN beyond the basic set that is in applicable law that is the subject for work stream 2.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Kavouss, I think the alternative to pass a resolution was suggested in case if the board will not agree with the bylaw text. The board has agreed to include HR commitment to the bylaw, so I assume the second alternative ceased to exist, because the choice has been made in favour of the inclusion of the HR commitment into the bylaws (the current agreed text). However, if the board will come up with the resolution in addition to the bylaw text, I will be more than happy to welcome these news as well :) But I don't think there is any reason to insist on this, since we have a compromise solution now. Best regards Tatiana On 04/02/16 10:31, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Bruce We had two alternatives 1. The current agreed text 2. An ICANN COMMITMENT RESOLUTION test should refer to application/ respect of HR by ICANN , endorsed by CCWG You promised to work on the second one? Where is the Commitment Board,s Resolution? Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Feb 2016, at 10:02, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Nigel,
and clearly says "human rights are NOT part of our core values". I don't think that is quite right.
Applicable law actually covers some human rights (e.g. slavery, torture) - it just may not cover all the human rights that you would like to be considered by ICANN.
There are some human rights that clearly don't apply to ICANN - ie we don't have arrest powers so arbitrary arrest clearly doesn't apply, nor do we charge people with penal offences, or confer nationality on people.
It is determining the relevant human rights that should apply to ICANN beyond the basic set that is in applicable law that is the subject for work stream 2.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
Hello Kavouss, We discussed both options yesterday. We went with this option in the spirit of helping to reach closure on CCWG recommendations. There is still some support on the board to also pass a resolution but we felt that we needed more time to get the wording of such a resolution right. I welcome any suggested text that could be considered at our meeting in Marrakech. Regards Bruce Tonkin Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Feb 2016, at 8:31 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Bruce We had two alternatives 1. The current agreed text 2. An ICANN COMMITMENT RESOLUTION test should refer to application/ respect of HR by ICANN , endorsed by CCWG You promised to work on the second one? Where is the Commitment Board,s Resolution? Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Feb 2016, at 10:02, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Nigel,
and clearly says "human rights are NOT part of our core values".
I don't think that is quite right.
Applicable law actually covers some human rights (e.g. slavery, torture) - it just may not cover all the human rights that you would like to be considered by ICANN.
There are some human rights that clearly don't apply to ICANN - ie we don't have arrest powers so arbitrary arrest clearly doesn't apply, nor do we charge people with penal offences, or confer nationality on people.
It is determining the relevant human rights that should apply to ICANN beyond the basic set that is in applicable law that is the subject for work stream 2.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Kavouss, dear Bruce, well this day is just full of good news about human rights commitment. I am sure many of the CCWG members are happy to hear that the board is developing a resolution in addition to the bylaw text! Thanks for the updates, Bruce. If CCWG members (especially those who were a part of WP4 on human rights) can be of any help for developing this wording together with the board, I am sure some of us will volunteers for this. There are some good examples of such commitments already adopted on practice (well, they probably can't serve as a quick off the cuff solution because of ICANN's unique mission and operations, but with some fine-tuning one can develop something similar in spirit). I am sure ICANN will find a proper wording. Thanks again! Best regards Tatiana On 04/02/16 10:41, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Kavouss,
We discussed both options yesterday. We went with this option in the spirit of helping to reach closure on CCWG recommendations.
There is still some support on the board to also pass a resolution but we felt that we needed more time to get the wording of such a resolution right. I welcome any suggested text that could be considered at our meeting in Marrakech.
Regards
Bruce Tonkin
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Feb 2016, at 8:31 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Bruce We had two alternatives 1. The current agreed text 2. An ICANN COMMITMENT RESOLUTION test should refer to application/ respect of HR by ICANN , endorsed by CCWG You promised to work on the second one? Where is the Commitment Board,s Resolution? Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Feb 2016, at 10:02, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Nigel,
and clearly says "human rights are NOT part of our core values". I don't think that is quite right.
Applicable law actually covers some human rights (e.g. slavery, torture) - it just may not cover all the human rights that you would like to be considered by ICANN.
There are some human rights that clearly don't apply to ICANN - ie we don't have arrest powers so arbitrary arrest clearly doesn't apply, nor do we charge people with penal offences, or confer nationality on people.
It is determining the relevant human rights that should apply to ICANN beyond the basic set that is in applicable law that is the subject for work stream 2.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Bruce, This is indeed great news, we'll discuss human rights commitments in the CCWP HR and make suggestions to the board for your consideration. Best, Niels On 02/04/2016 10:56 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
Dear Kavouss, dear Bruce, well this day is just full of good news about human rights commitment. I am sure many of the CCWG members are happy to hear that the board is developing a resolution in addition to the bylaw text! Thanks for the updates, Bruce. If CCWG members (especially those who were a part of WP4 on human rights) can be of any help for developing this wording together with the board, I am sure some of us will volunteers for this. There are some good examples of such commitments already adopted on practice (well, they probably can't serve as a quick off the cuff solution because of ICANN's unique mission and operations, but with some fine-tuning one can develop something similar in spirit). I am sure ICANN will find a proper wording. Thanks again! Best regards Tatiana
On 04/02/16 10:41, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Kavouss,
We discussed both options yesterday. We went with this option in the spirit of helping to reach closure on CCWG recommendations.
There is still some support on the board to also pass a resolution but we felt that we needed more time to get the wording of such a resolution right. I welcome any suggested text that could be considered at our meeting in Marrakech.
Regards
Bruce Tonkin
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Feb 2016, at 8:31 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Bruce We had two alternatives 1. The current agreed text 2. An ICANN COMMITMENT RESOLUTION test should refer to application/ respect of HR by ICANN , endorsed by CCWG You promised to work on the second one? Where is the Commitment Board,s Resolution? Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Feb 2016, at 10:02, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Nigel,
and clearly says "human rights are NOT part of our core values". I don't think that is quite right.
Applicable law actually covers some human rights (e.g. slavery, torture) - it just may not cover all the human rights that you would like to be considered by ICANN.
There are some human rights that clearly don't apply to ICANN - ie we don't have arrest powers so arbitrary arrest clearly doesn't apply, nor do we charge people with penal offences, or confer nationality on people.
It is determining the relevant human rights that should apply to ICANN beyond the basic set that is in applicable law that is the subject for work stream 2.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
Bruce Trust me, that is exactly what it it says. It says, "ICANN will respect the law, but will do no more". Under the proposed wording, it is perfectly legal for ICANN to adopting binding policies that require property rights to override free expression rights in every case. There is no applicable law that requires otherwise. I can see where the discontinuity is here. You are conflating the requirement to follow domestic law, with a committment to respect human rights. You are just afraid that someone will one day ask ICANN to honour such a committment, and you want to be able to fall back on "well, we only follow California law". The law against murder is not a law requiring ICANN to respect the right to life. The law against murder is a State respecting the right to life, not ICANN. The same for any other laws that apply to ICANN. It's entirely otiose to say "ICANN will follow the law". That's inherent in ICANN's incorporation and structure. In the UK there is a fairly detailed legal provision that sets out out human rights obligations work (the Human Rights Act 1998 which I studied in detail in law school). Yet even there it is clear from the statute that human rights obligations does not apply to private companies unless they adopt them voluntarily. The wording chosen, on a strict construction, EXCLUDES all human rights obligations -- it does not adopt any at all. If you don't believe me, let's ask Mrs Clooney for her opinion. On 04/02/16 09:02, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Nigel,
and clearly says "human rights are NOT part of our core values".
I don't think that is quite right.
Applicable law actually covers some human rights (e.g. slavery, torture) - it just may not cover all the human rights that you would like to be considered by ICANN.
There are some human rights that clearly don't apply to ICANN - ie we don't have arrest powers so arbitrary arrest clearly doesn't apply, nor do we charge people with penal offences, or confer nationality on people.
It is determining the relevant human rights that should apply to ICANN beyond the basic set that is in applicable law that is the subject for work stream 2.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 to Bruce, I thought we already had those discussion regarding what applicable law clause was supposed to mean. Being a lawyer myself, I firmly believe that the agreed text of the bylaw is confirming ICANN's commitment to human rights. The interpretation of this commitment (as it was earlier so well explained by Greg Shatan in one of his last emails on this matter) is a part of work stream 2. If we decide that a reference to UDHR shall be a part of this commitment, the community will propose it in the framework of interpretation. So I consider the agreed bylaw text as the best possible compromise and a huge step forward. I also would like to thank Bruce for the good news and the board for cooperation. This compromise solution really shows that we can find a way forward! Best regards Tatiana On 04/02/16 09:16, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Nigel,
It sounds nice, and means nothing in terms of committing ICANN to do anything but follow California law, which it is obliged to do anyway. Well I hope it is a step forward to note that human rights are part of our core values. Applicable law could also apply to other locations where ICANN operates - e.g. we have offices and staff that work on multiple locations around the world. We need to obey the laws that relate to those staff in each country for example - e.g. anti-slavery and anti-discrimination laws.
Why is the ICANN Board scared of agreeing to respect the rights in the UDHR?? It should be proud to set an example to other multistakeholder and private sector organisations. I think we should focus on actually identifying how to interpret all the various concepts around human rights and create our own framework of interpretation that is relevant to us. That is the aim of work stream 2 . For example I don't know anything about UDHR. I would rather we have a page of text that explains exactly what ICANN is on the hook for beyond applicable law. We may well look at getting an expert that advises non-government organizations on how best to respect human rights in their operations that can help with the work stream 2 work.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 to Bruce, Tatiana and Greg. Am already looking forward to the work in WS2 and would like to thank everyone for reaching this consensus. Best, Niels On 02/04/2016 09:51 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
+1 to Bruce, I thought we already had those discussion regarding what applicable law clause was supposed to mean. Being a lawyer myself, I firmly believe that the agreed text of the bylaw is confirming ICANN's commitment to human rights. The interpretation of this commitment (as it was earlier so well explained by Greg Shatan in one of his last emails on this matter) is a part of work stream 2. If we decide that a reference to UDHR shall be a part of this commitment, the community will propose it in the framework of interpretation. So I consider the agreed bylaw text as the best possible compromise and a huge step forward. I also would like to thank Bruce for the good news and the board for cooperation. This compromise solution really shows that we can find a way forward! Best regards Tatiana
On 04/02/16 09:16, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Nigel,
It sounds nice, and means nothing in terms of committing ICANN to do anything but follow California law, which it is obliged to do anyway. Well I hope it is a step forward to note that human rights are part of our core values. Applicable law could also apply to other locations where ICANN operates - e.g. we have offices and staff that work on multiple locations around the world. We need to obey the laws that relate to those staff in each country for example - e.g. anti-slavery and anti-discrimination laws.
Why is the ICANN Board scared of agreeing to respect the rights in the UDHR?? It should be proud to set an example to other multistakeholder and private sector organisations. I think we should focus on actually identifying how to interpret all the various concepts around human rights and create our own framework of interpretation that is relevant to us. That is the aim of work stream 2 . For example I don't know anything about UDHR. I would rather we have a page of text that explains exactly what ICANN is on the hook for beyond applicable law. We may well look at getting an expert that advises non-government organizations on how best to respect human rights in their operations that can help with the work stream 2 work.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
+1 The board concern to thinking through third party implications is a cautious yet sensible one. And something we had agreed some time ago should be WS 2 work. We need also to be very clear about ICANN's special role - it is not like most NGOs, which do not have a global operational responsibility, or which have the ability to withdraw from a country or activity without fundamentally undermining their mission. Paul Twomey On 2/4/16 8:32 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
+1 to Bruce, Tatiana and Greg.
Am already looking forward to the work in WS2 and would like to thank everyone for reaching this consensus.
Best,
Niels
On 02/04/2016 09:51 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
+1 to Bruce, I thought we already had those discussion regarding what applicable law clause was supposed to mean. Being a lawyer myself, I firmly believe that the agreed text of the bylaw is confirming ICANN's commitment to human rights. The interpretation of this commitment (as it was earlier so well explained by Greg Shatan in one of his last emails on this matter) is a part of work stream 2. If we decide that a reference to UDHR shall be a part of this commitment, the community will propose it in the framework of interpretation. So I consider the agreed bylaw text as the best possible compromise and a huge step forward. I also would like to thank Bruce for the good news and the board for cooperation. This compromise solution really shows that we can find a way forward! Best regards Tatiana
On 04/02/16 09:16, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Nigel,
It sounds nice, and means nothing in terms of committing ICANN to do anything but follow California law, which it is obliged to do anyway. Well I hope it is a step forward to note that human rights are part of our core values. Applicable law could also apply to other locations where ICANN operates - e.g. we have offices and staff that work on multiple locations around the world. We need to obey the laws that relate to those staff in each country for example - e.g. anti-slavery and anti-discrimination laws.
Why is the ICANN Board scared of agreeing to respect the rights in the UDHR?? It should be proud to set an example to other multistakeholder and private sector organisations. I think we should focus on actually identifying how to interpret all the various concepts around human rights and create our own framework of interpretation that is relevant to us. That is the aim of work stream 2 . For example I don't know anything about UDHR. I would rather we have a page of text that explains exactly what ICANN is on the hook for beyond applicable law. We may well look at getting an expert that advises non-government organizations on how best to respect human rights in their operations that can help with the work stream 2 work.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com
Absolutely agree with Paul. After I read the rationale, which the board provided for modification of the bylaw language (in the PDF document attached to Bruce's email), I understood better the board's concerns about third party implications. I realised that the language we proposed (as Chinese wall against claims to "to enforce") could be, according to the board statement, interpreted in a different way - or at least someone can try to do so. While I can not fully agree with this position, I can respect this opinion and can admit that this is a sensitive issue, which requires further consideration. Thus, I have to agree with the proposed modification for the sake of finding the middle ground. From our communications with the board (Bruce's last emails) I can figure out that the board agrees that the question of which human rights are applicable to the ICANN (and, thus, which standards, etc.) shall be an issue for consideration in the WS2, so we are on the same page here. This was the initial idea in any case: to have a commitment in the bylaw and to interpret in in WS2. Agree with Paul that we have to be clear about ICANN's special role - this is why we need WS2 on the first place. All in all, though I am not crazily happy with the proposed language (but this is what constructive approach means, I assume), I think that this bylaw together with further board's statement can in a good way outline ICANN's commitment to human rights and frame our work in WS2. Best regards Tatiana On 04/02/16 15:31, Paul Twomey wrote:
+1
The board concern to thinking through third party implications is a cautious yet sensible one. And something we had agreed some time ago should be WS 2 work. We need also to be very clear about ICANN's special role - it is not like most NGOs, which do not have a global operational responsibility, or which have the ability to withdraw from a country or activity without fundamentally undermining their mission.
Paul Twomey
On 2/4/16 8:32 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
+1 to Bruce, Tatiana and Greg.
Am already looking forward to the work in WS2 and would like to thank everyone for reaching this consensus.
Best,
Niels
On 02/04/2016 09:51 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
+1 to Bruce, I thought we already had those discussion regarding what applicable law clause was supposed to mean. Being a lawyer myself, I firmly believe that the agreed text of the bylaw is confirming ICANN's commitment to human rights. The interpretation of this commitment (as it was earlier so well explained by Greg Shatan in one of his last emails on this matter) is a part of work stream 2. If we decide that a reference to UDHR shall be a part of this commitment, the community will propose it in the framework of interpretation. So I consider the agreed bylaw text as the best possible compromise and a huge step forward. I also would like to thank Bruce for the good news and the board for cooperation. This compromise solution really shows that we can find a way forward! Best regards Tatiana
On 04/02/16 09:16, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Nigel,
It sounds nice, and means nothing in terms of committing ICANN to do anything but follow California law, which it is obliged to do anyway. Well I hope it is a step forward to note that human rights are part of our core values. Applicable law could also apply to other locations where ICANN operates - e.g. we have offices and staff that work on multiple locations around the world. We need to obey the laws that relate to those staff in each country for example - e.g. anti-slavery and anti-discrimination laws.
Why is the ICANN Board scared of agreeing to respect the rights in the UDHR?? It should be proud to set an example to other multistakeholder and private sector organisations. I think we should focus on actually identifying how to interpret all the various concepts around human rights and create our own framework of interpretation that is relevant to us. That is the aim of work stream 2 . For example I don't know anything about UDHR. I would rather we have a page of text that explains exactly what ICANN is on the hook for beyond applicable law. We may well look at getting an expert that advises non-government organizations on how best to respect human rights in their operations that can help with the work stream 2 work.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (7)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Dr. Tatiana Tropina -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Niels ten Oever -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Twomey