-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi Paul, I'm sorry for responding this late. Please find my response inline: On 10/20/2015 04:09 AM, Paul Twomey wrote:
Niels
I am again confronted with the challenge of understanding exactly what these broadly stated proposals mean.
We did our best to be precise, but maybe we haven't sufficiently succeeded. Could you please point our which proposals or recommendation (in the report) you mean with 'these broadly stated proposals'?
Does your paper just refer to the process within ICANN of creating policy - or does it apply to the application of that policy?
As the paper described, a human rights review could be part of the Policy Develop Process. But to have a full human rights report, the impact of ICANN's policies and operations should be assessed.
For instance, concerning specific ICANN necessary functions would you be able to tell me how the process recommended in this paper would apply to the GAC principles on redelgation of ccTLDs or the ccNSO process which has been underway on redelgations? These are both products of policy making processes.
The report recommends a way forward, based on international best practices, for creating a human rights policy, the content of the policy and how it would be implemented is of course up for discussion in an appropriate process.
Does it mean that freedom of expression has to be an overriding principle in these cases - and if so how do you see operationalizing that?
I don't think this was mentioned or implied anywhere in the report. Rights need to be balanced, the challenge is to come up with a framework to do this in the best way.
If a government, operating clearly under its laws, requests the redelegation of ccTLD from one body to another because the new law empowers the government to get information about domain name registrants from the new body and to order the new body to remove registrations on instructions from the government (I know of at least 2 examples just like this happening in the last 10 years) and if such a request is consistent with the GAC principles etc, it seems to me that your paper implies that ICANN would be required to either deny this request or require that the existing policy processes be changed.
Have I got it right? Or is it just that in the policy development process all who wanted to participate had the freedom to express their views?
The latter is the case.
Please understand that I also think that we should try to hold ICANN to human rights standards but I remain concerned that as soon as the Ruggles Principles emerge as the answer I keep finding related party issues which could really destabilize the whole ICANN mission.
Am very happy to discuss this with you, you mentioned this before, but I am still a bit unclear which part of the Ruggie principles could potentially destabilize ICANN.
The bottom line is that ICANN has to support EVERY ccTLD and TLD operator if we are going to have a single interoperable Internet. It is not like a business - a business can agree not to do business in a particular country. ICANN will not be able to do so and fulfill its mission.
I think it is crucial for an organization to know and show where there are (risk for) human rights abuses in relation to their operations and think about ways how these can be re-mediated or improved upon, this by no way automatically means that ICANN cannot do x or y or engage with a specific country or business. There are also other bodies that have done this, such as the International Bar Association.
I look forward to your response.
Again, sorry for the late reply, am looking forward to your thoughts. Best, Niels
Best
Paul
On 10/19/15 9:26 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: Dear Paul,
This was indeed meant to inform WP4 on the activity in the CCWP-HR and give an example of what the considerations and work in WS2 might look like.
Looking forward to hear your comments and/or questions.
Best,
Niels
On 10/19/2015 09:10 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I think it is informational. Explains many of the things we have been discussing.
It is the output of a parallel work effort and is meant to inform.
avri
On 19-Oct-15 00:58, Paul Twomey wrote:
Sorry Niels
I am not attending Dublin. Can you please inform me how this document fits within the work of Working Party 4?
Paul
On 10/18/15 2:19 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear WP4 members,
It's with great pleasure that I send you the the report prepared by the CCWP-HR on ICANNâs Corporate Responsibility to respect Human Rights: Recommendations for developing Human Rights Review Process and Reporting.
The report will be presented and discussed during our session on Wednesday October 21 at 9:00 in Wicklow MR5 or via remote participation [0] for which you all have been invited.
I trust this report will help further the discussion on how ICANN can live up to its responsibility to respect human rights.
Looking forward to discuss.
Best,
Niels
PS Feel free to spread the report widely. it can also be found on the website of the CCWP-HR: https://tinyurl.com/cchumanrights
[0] https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-ccwp-human-ri ght
s-morning
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
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWLlYIAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpyqMH/jpSWGVUXhGgNaEbIqn2qW8q 3FhfkV6kPj/ovZXsZRcwIJHVJ25EmIcy4ROMggtGmfSQBYIs+jiJggbt+ZQgvTOb BkiYBEDIhU5ohBX/UTaJ5rIN04FHk70+q2T2DkYLlDIA32UewiSsK79l99Ejo9zr oPy+Cjin225ifcUh6Tdx78zkNa7p7DX/YVC/dMFww1yfsa7gJwuStufyIZVLz7Wr 9JPpNWs6WB5EIU/6n3wExeeoqWllrOcANsw8efTdFfzxBuoMHr0u7P6VptHrRGhT kXVsA9JL9ir/W4XS/lg1F0VmfW1ff2RIzGLlGRd/7jWq0P92d0eRXbK7SadcE9M= =207Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----