I agree with Greg that the focus is on policy development and subsequent implementation. I agree with Niels (and many in the thread before him) that not all of the dissection of what adherance means needs to be done in WS1. I think this group will bog down forever if we try to parse that list of covenants and figure out which apply to ICANN's policy role, particularly given that tricky grey area of content control which we must not step over. SO my bottom line is, can we agree to find language that refers to the UDHR and the ICCPR as it applies to ICANN's limited mandate and pass the rest of the work on to both the Working Party on Human Rights and to WS2? My own view is that the work needs to be done, but not slow down the finalization of the proposal, and discussion of the various convenants promises to get really slow and difficult. I suspect WS2 will have to get to the next level, but certainly not the bottom, of what it would mean for ICANN to respect human rights in its mandate. Having said this, ICANN's responsibility to be a global institution with fair and equitable access does impact certain of the convenants and we will inevitably get into what it means to be non-discriminatory when acting "in the public interest". I thought Avri had already come up with a great formulation for the purposes of WS1. cheers Stephanie Perrin On 2015-08-12 11:02, Greg Shatan wrote:
GS: Clearly, we are not starting from scratch. However, I don't think ICANN can be directly compared to a company like Cisco. Cisco runs a business; it doesn't make policy or set norms. ICANN may have a corporation with employees at its core (or arguably, not at the core), but it is more than that -- it is a multistakeholder governance ecosystem. I may be wrong, but I expect that the primary concern relating to ICANN and Human Rights relates to policy matters (and resulting implementation matters) and not to how ICANN run itself as a business (e.g., hiring, pay, benefits and other employee matters; purchasing decisions; etc.). As such, we really are breaking new ground here. As mentioned in my bullet point list, it would be interesting to know how other more comparable organizations have dealt with Human Rights commitments (e.g., the I* organizations, standard-setting NGO's, self-regulatory industry bodies, multistakeholder organizations, etc.)