Thank you, Niels, this is terrific - both the A19 paper and the report of the meeting in Singapore, which I was not able to attend in person since it was scheduled at the same time as the accountability session unfortunately.  I listened to the recording and indeed it was a terrific meeting and I'm very encouraged about this effort going forward.

I also wanted to point to the fact that the GNSO supported free expression for new gtlds in the policy that was actually passed by the GNSO Council and then sent to the board for ratification.  Unfortunately, in the subsequent "implementation" of the GNSO-approved gtld policy, the free expression guarantee was entirely ignored by staff, and most people don't even know it exists today.   These GNSO Principles and Recommendations were hard fought over many years to reach a consensus approval, and then to see the principles about respecting free expression ignored but the principles about "protecting" IP (or GAC "sensitivities") given maximum attention has shown a number of holes in the multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance, or at least ICANN's version of it.

See Approved Final GNSO Policy Recommendations:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc43798015

Principle G:
The string evaluation process must not infringe the applicant's freedom of expression rights that are protected under internationally recognized principles of law.

Recommendation 6:
Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law.  Examples of such principles of law include, but are not limited to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, intellectual property treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS).

Best,
Robin


On Feb 23, 2015, at 5:49 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you very much for attending the session on ICANNs Corporate
Responsibility to Respect Human Rights at ICANN52 in Singapore.

Please find underneath the summary of session, as prepared by Marilia
Maciel. For your convenience I also attached the report produced by
Article19.

We're looking forward to continue the conversation with you on this
topic at the e-mail list. We subscribed the people that indicated so,
you can subscribe yourself here:
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
If by any chance we subscribed and you did not want this, you can
unsubscribe using the same link.

We're looking forward to continue the discussion on the list.

Best,


Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                  678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9




Human Rights in ICANN: continuing the conversation

ICANN’s corporate responsibility to respect human rights

Summary of the main points raised during the session held at ICANN 52
Wed, February 11th


1. There is a need for ICANN to respect human rights in its policies and
procedures.  It was recalled that Article 4 of ICANN’s Articles of
Incorporation state that ICANN shall operate for the benefit of the
Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity
with relevant principles of international law and local law. These
include legal instruments on human rights.
2. Internationally recognized standards for corporate responsibility,
such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, also
apply to ICANN. This point is further explored in a paper presented as a
background material to this session available at:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Continuing+the+conversation+on+ICANN+and+Human+Rights
3. Actors operating in ICANN have different responsibilities with
regards to human rights. States in the GAC are bound by treaties and
international obligations to protect human rights, while ICANN as an
organization needs to respect human rights in its policies and procedures.

4. The mandate of ICANN is very specific and the discussion on human
rights needs to observe the limits of ICANN’s remit. The impact of
ICANN’s policies on first generation human rights, such as the right to
privacy and right to freedom of expression is particularly important and
needs to be assessed.
5. ICANN contracted parties have identified difficulties operate with
different national laws. There is need for guidance to reconcile the
need to respect local laws and their obligation to contractual
compliance with ICANN. The obligations faced by Registrars regarding the
collection of information and the need to harmonize it with data privacy
standards was mentioned as an example.

6. There is need to discuss mechanisms to make sure that policies are
developed in a manner that is consistent with human rights obligations.

7. A shared concern with this topic can be identified in ICANN
communities. Support to start a cross-community effort was expressed
during the session in the form of a working party or of a working group.
Some possible goals of this cross-community discussion could be:
To continue the process of raising awareness about the interplay between
ICANN’s policies and human rights;
To map and collect information on the concrete cases identified by the
community in which further guidance on how to harmonize policies and
procedures with human rights would be necessary;
To develop guidelines for the procedures that in place or that should be
created in the policy development process to ensure the respect for
human rights;
To propose mechanisms that could help to identify potential human rights
implications during the process of policy development.

8. Regarding the next steps, some action items have been suggested:
To create a cross-community working group or a cross-community working
party, after assessing which of these structures would be the best option;
To further the contact with SO and AC chairs in order to jointly assess
the way forward and the best way to foster cross-community engagement;
Terms of reference for this cross-community work will be developed;
Discussion about this topic should continue in ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires.


9. For further information:

The audio recording of this session is available at:
http://audio.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/human-rights-11feb15-en.mp3

The transcripts of the session are available at:
http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-human-rights/transcript-human-rights-11feb15

Mailing list: cc-humanrights@icann.org

Article 19. ICANN’s corporate responsibility to protect Human Rights.
February, 2015.
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Continuing+the+conversation+on+ICANN+and+Human+Rights

<ICANN-PAPER-WEB.pdf>_______________________________________________
cc-humanrights mailing list
cc-humanrights@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights