Paul,
I doubt that you will be helpful, since you still use the previous
terminology, which indicates you are not familiar with current
interpretation of policy...
And, though ICANN apparently was an enabler of your successor,
"recognizing" and/or "empowering" third parties is not the issue.
Even if it should be.
el
On 2015-10-28 22:39 , Paul Twomey wrote:
HI Niels
Thanks for your reply.
I think the best I can do is ask for some time on Friday to
explain the practical steps involved in changes of tld operator
(especially a cctld operator) both through requests for
redelegation and also requests for changes in the zone file
through the IANA process. Because it is several of these where I
see ICANN being practically engaged in recognizing end empowering
a related party which could be guilty of human rights abuse.
As for the Ruggie Principles, let me point again to principle 13
and its commentary (and that of principle 19):
13.
The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business
enterprises:
(a)
Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts
through their own activities, and address such impacts when they
occur;
(b)
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.
(/Emphasis added - this is the nature of the IANA functions
relationship with ccTLDs) // /
Commentary
Business enterprises may be involved with adverse human rights
impacts either
through their own activities or as a result of their business
relationships with
other parties. Guiding Principle 19 elaborates further on the
implications for
how business enterprises should address these situations. For the
purpose of
these Guiding Principles a business enterprise’s
“activities” are understood
to include both actions and omissions; and its “business
relationships” are
understood to include relationships with business partners,
entities in its
value chain, and any other non-State or State entity directly
linked to its
business operations, products or services
Commentary on Principle 19
The more complex the situation and its implications for human
rights, the
stronger is the case for the enterprise to draw on independent
expert advice
in deciding how to respond. */(ICANN is the body to make
decisions on tlds - there is not another expert body)/*
If the business enterprise has leverage to prevent or mitigate the
adverse
impact, it should exercise it. And if it lacks leverage there may
be ways for
the enterprise to increase it. Leverage may be increased by, for
example,
offering capacity-building or other incentives to the related
entity, or
collaborating with other actors. */(ICANN should not be asked to
put political leverage on a government - it will destroy its
apolitical role)/**//*
*//*
There are situations in which the enterprise lacks the leverage to
prevent
or mitigate adverse impacts and is unable to increase its
leverage. Here,
the enterprise should consider ending the relationship, taking
into account
credible assessments of potential adverse human rights impacts of
doing so. *(ICANN cannot consider ending a relationship with a
cctld and still operate the IANA functions )***
** * ** *It seems to me that Ruggie Principles basically are
saying if another party in which you are in a business
relationship continues to breach human rights you should consider
ending the relationship.
this is just what ICANN can NOT do with a ccTLD or even some TLD
operators if it is going to continue to be the protocol
coordinator of a single Interoperable Internet.
But if it does not breach these relationships one can just see the
level of litigation from human rights and dissident groups which
could be brought against ICANN if it does adopt these principles
without amendment.
Paul
[...]
_______________________________________________
Wp4 mailing list
Wp4@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4