Hi all, My two cents: The draft paper suggested a comprehensive HRIA as one of the options in the recommendations part, but referred to this option as "time consuming and costly, and not necessarily easy to time in relation to the issues paper". I agree with Matthew's comment that this comprehensive HRIA is not even anywhere close to the possibility and will turn people off. So I support the idea to start with the most relevant rights, may be even to narrow this to freedom of expression and privacy (but explaining that this is just a first step and we will expand) and see how it goes. This would be already enough job, I believe. Furthermore, we can see how well it goes and how we can extend to other relevant human rights. If these two relevant rights are not enough and we want to go further, I am voting for inclusion of culture and linguistic diversity, special needs of vulnerable groups and security&stability (though I am not sure what security means here - security of person which will be somehow linked also to the security and stability of networks?). However, one very important point, in my opinion. I think we have to be very clear that we are not hand-picking human rights, that we are just analysing the most relevant of them for the time being within the framework of the first HRIA. This should be reflected clearly in the paper and anywhere else. Best regards Tanya On 23 September 2015 at 15:10, Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256

Hi all,

There is a question I would like to ask you, and your comments would really help our work on the paper forward:

While human rights principles dictate that human rights are indivisible and one cannot pick and choose rights, it is also true that some rights are more relevant than others in certain circumstances.

Should ICANN start with privacy and freedom of expression for the time being, or go a little wider and include some economic, social and cultural rights?

Our draft paper has a bit of discussion on this point. It is reproduced below. I also thought it might be interesting to see the 31 indicators used by Ranking Digital Rights https://rankingdigitalrights.org/project-documents/2015-indicators/ - it is a set of more detailed indicators (around commitment, privacy, and freedom of expression) to be used to rank ICT companies and so these are more corporate footprint oriented rather than focusing on policy development per se. Again, a bit of apples and oranges but this different approach may stimulate more discussion.

It would be great to hear what you all think about this in the coming days.

Best,

Niels ______________

In the ICT sector, it is generally understood that the most prevalent human rights issues are freedom of expression and privacy. For example, Yahoo! states that the Yahoo Business & Human Rights Program was created to coordinate and lead its efforts to protect and promote free expression and privacy.[1] Likewise, the Ranking Digital Rights project plans to use 31 indicators focused on disclosure of policies and practices of ICT companies that affect users’ freedom of expression and privacy.[2] ARTICLE 19’s June 2015 paper on ICANN’s corporate responsibility to respect human rights examines freedom of expression and the right to privacy and data protection principles in detail in the context of ICANN’s operations.

Others suggest that a broader list of human rights should be considered in the context of Internet governance. As mentioned already, the Council of Europe report suggested pluralism and cultural and linguistic diversity, as well as respect for special needs of vulnerable groups should be considered. Other sources suggest freedom of association, right to religion, and non-discrimination, as well as international human rights principles.[1] The Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms, convened by the World Economic Forum and ICANN, suggests that human rights dimensions of Internet governance entails culture and linguistic diversity, security and stability and open unfragmented space, among others.

Finally, the UNGPs suggest that all internationally recognised human rights should be considered in the impacts assessment process. This means as a minimum “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” (Principle 12). Of course, it is possible that some of these rights are more relevant than others in the ICT context, and that only few may be triggered in connection with ICANN’s policy development process. The ICT Sector Guide mentions the rights to privacy and freedom of expression, government requests to ICT companies, and labor issues, as well as business relationships, particularly with suppliers.

The decision on what rights should be addressed by ICANN will affect the scope and complexity of its human rights impacts assessment, and its reporting on matters related to its responsibility to respect human rights. One approach for the first HRIA could be to begin with impacts already being discussed within ICANN, such as freedom of expression and privacy, and then expanding the HRIA to include other rights.

- -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWAqTDAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjptgwH/1NSTtbPOYkA/5i0JxxGyKY5 MRlRQ2VuOoOmQsVcGFxKgc8nM9TY7ii7OZu40XUm8eyTuD+JBpy9qDekQcEHLJwU IEi228k4p0vcpiDZyx0fMVMgCVqXkoHt9LOUjtan6AU5hcVdi+F/ivF24114an5S I7wRaIu8/kdWinOv/vAVenn7ro79z22uSsJvPE62b87JQmf5ENshS+3q7H7rvUG5 qFQiVrNq884OD7VrOAcLj6jNwQJ3WfCYqXXXO/YfiHM4i73yhStswpAr4b/5L/3B ubLRM+7bDXwujlplp8EyrlYAlg5cL/8Exp7/8hI+IkomSqaDAK/EPd8ahaHp9mM= =S6ZA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights