Nigel Let me put my own case - it is not one of being biased against the UN. I am not and the UN has got little to do with my concern. My concern remains focused: the practical operational necessities of maintaining the IANA function which is the most important thing ICANN does. At the core of the IANA function, ICANN has to deal with EVERY country code and generic top level domain operator. If it does not, we do not have a global internet - or at least not one coordinated by ICANN. It is impossible for ICANN to be held accountable for the human rights performance of these operators who are required to act under their own countries laws - during my tenure as CEO even had to deal with situations where ccTLD operators were being shot at by forces linked to at least parts of governments were not been getting what they want. So my concern is that the Ruggie Principles state that a company is accountable to Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts. My concern with the Principles is this: the company needs to prevent human rights impacts of its contracting or business partners. This if pushed on ICANN by actors (not just inside ICANN community) who are against the way a ccTLD is being operated (or even a gTLD which comes under national law) could result in either: - ICANN getting involved in political and content issues in every country (completely contrary to its technical coordination role) and/or - If it does seek to promote human rights at the ccTLD level, many countries seeking an alternative to the single IANA function, and the breaking up of the present single global interoperable Internet. Either one would be disastrous. And it may fine for us to say "but ICANN does not set ccTLD policy" etc. but wait for a political advocacy group to take this provision to a US or other court and the court may still say that ICANN is obligated. Hence my suggestion that we be clear that human rights be limited only to ICANN's own ways of conducting its work within its mission. I am supportive of the modified language in the draft. Paul On 9/2/15 9:57 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Hi Nigel,
On 09/02/2015 09:38 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
No, I think this is an incorrect representation. The sub-group did not recommend that. Some members of the sub-group recommended this. I was not on the last call and I have a problem with "internationally recognised" simply because there's no such thing, and I suspect this is well known.
Syria, ISIL, Egypt, North Korea don't recognise anyone's human rights. (All taken from BBC news stories in the last 2 days!).
I think 'internationally recognized' here means human rights are an inherent part of international law.
I can live with a reference 'human rights' without mentioning 'internationally recognized' or 'fundamental' because I don't think the latter two add something significant to the first.
I know Paul Twomey has got a particular bias against the UN, which he expressed on the list, but are we, as ICANN, going to formally reject the UN Declaration on Human Rights here?
The concerns of Paul Twomey were about risk of ICANN being liable because of this commitment, right? Or did I miss something? I think that issue was discussed on the list and the conclusion was that this is not an expansion of existing commitments as defined in Art. 4 of ICANNs Articles of Incorporation.
And reject the recent work that shows how non-state-actors should incorporate fundamental rights principles?
There is a very big difference between the UN as an organisation which can be bureaucratic, politicised and inefficient (just think ITU) and the fundamental princtiples of the Declaration which have been put together by the brightest brains of the 20th Century from major nations following the worst conflict in human history.
+1
Best,
Niels
I think it would be hubris to think we (ICANN) could design a better.
I don't think that debate is over.
Nigel
PS: As you know, 'due to having to work for a living' I missed the last call -- on a similar WG within my own constituency we had a guideline that no contentious changes were made without consensus, and that meant two calls minumum.
On 09/02/2015 06:18 AM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (via Google Docs) wrote:
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> has invited you to *comment on* the following document: Draft high level wording on Human Rights <https://docs.google.com/document/d/15t32Y7DyzGCAR21XT9koN9y2hNK_nAif uNZGwaFfnlQ/edit?usp=sharing_eid&invite=CPbhiZkN>
Sender's profile photoDear all,
As per our last call, here is the link to the google doc that tries to reflect our discussion and propose an amended version of the initial draft on the high-level wording on human rights. Open in Docs <https://docs.google.com/document/d/15t32Y7DyzGCAR21XT9koN9y2hNK_nAif uNZGwaFfnlQ/edit?usp=sharing_eid&invite=CPbhiZkN>
This email grants access to this item. Only forward it to people you
trust. Snapshot of the item below:
CCWG proposed language on Human Rights
The CCWG has identified the need to include in its final proposal a high-level statement on ICANN’s commitment to respect fundamental rights in all its actions. Therefore a special sub-group was created to discuss and propose a draft wording to be included in the CCWG’s proposal and an explanatory note on how this proposed wording was reached and forward to the larger group for discussion and call for consensus.
With the help of Nigel Roberts, a first explanatory paper was circulated. This paper explained the nuances and differences between human rights and fundamental rights and also highlighted a comprehensive list of documentation that could help as guidance for the sub-group’s discussion.
Also, a first high-level wording was drafted by Nigel Roberts and discussed in the sub-group’s calls. The original draft for the high-level objective read:
“RECOGNISING ICANN's special role in the functioning of the world-wide Internet;
FURTHER RECOGNISING ICANN's unique nature as a multi-stakeholder, private-sector led organisations;
HAVING IN MIND THE COMMITMENT of the corporation set out in Article 4 in ICANN's Articles of Incorporation to carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law;
ASSERTING that it wishes to ensure the same level, when acting within its distinct mission, of rights for Internet users and businesses that would be expected of it were it a state actor;
HEREBY AFFIRMS its support without reservation for the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and intends to develop by-laws and policy to give it full effect within the work and defined mission of the Corporation.”
In its first call the sub-group discussed this high-level draft and participants showed an overall support for the underlying principle but suggested some changes to this first draft.
Comments were made on the implication of restricting the proposed wording to refer to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights rather than having a more general reference to internationally recognized Human Rights and keep the specifics to be fleshed out as part of WS2.
There were also comments on the implications that could have adding the words “without reservation” to the proposed wording and the actual need to express this explicitly as it doesn’t seem that ICANN could actually reserve any right to not fully respect Human Rights once it is committed to it and furthermore when reference documents have been detailed later in WS2.
Having this in mind the sub-group proposed that the original wording be modified as follows (changes highlighted in bold):
“RECOGNISING ICANN's special role in the functioning of the world-wide Internet;
FURTHER RECOGNISING ICANN's unique nature as a multi-stakeholder, private-sector led organisations;
HAVING IN MIND THE COMMITMENT of the corporation set out in Article 4 in ICANN's Articles of Incorporation to carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law;
ASSERTING that it wishes to ensure the same level, when acting within its distinct mission, of rights for Internet users and businesses that would be expected of it were it a state actor;
HEREBY AFFIRMS its support to internationally recognized Human Rights, and intends to develop by-laws and policy to give it full effect within the work and defined mission of the Corporation.”
Google Docs: Create and edit documents online. Logo for Google Docs <https://drive.google.com>
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
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
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJV5uRDAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpyhsIAKC00rq+BP+gTIg6gQybZVxi vhymMzkSQriJaI8w6fdTO1XdK5LDiaoUxaOSJm5/LeDd9/5xHDwaCYD7OpOPKTd9 z5ajqpxP/ceG32WFTrrOcHLENPI0KhqaLlRMvlaBEFBjxt+jpoWfCop4ma5xNPCH UurA78uAAk4X6z82VrU4CqO/wqhF24/FYGY/2w+sABRJBanRhoo3bHl+Da7NslvQ cQqpQolSVcp8k4yb+gkjlGSBJXGogvqumZ0eE8c/TIm1ultbGWfZkRs+Ws8ezQ5j XxZ1TIPiXRDN9WiwS3gG2SWOOxuIEdMXktYnb3mZS3lCpowFAl9DXCj2aGV5IM0= =/48U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com