Draft high level wording on Human Rights - Invitation to comment
I've shared an item with you: Draft high level wording on Human Rights https://docs.google.com/document/d/15t32Y7DyzGCAR21XT9koN9y2hNK_nAifuNZGwaFf... It's not an attachment -- it's stored online. To open this item, just click the link above. Dear 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.
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 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? 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. 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_nAifuNZGwaFf...> 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_nAifuNZGwaFf...> 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
Hi Nigel On 9/2/2015 8:38 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 think the summary provided by Leon reflects the discussion we had. 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. I agree and have suggested its deletion in the google doc
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? I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should reject the UDHR.
I think it would be hubris to think we (ICANN) could design a better.
I don't think that debate is over. Agree there is a need for further discussion and encourage those interested to contribute to the google doc.
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. I like to think that we are still in a discuss/debate phase.
Matthew
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_nAifuNZGwaFf...>
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_nAifuNZGwaFf...>
This email grants access to this item. Only forward it to people you trust.
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
-----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-----
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
I think I also said earlier that I totally agree that ICANN's obligations in this regard be limited to what it does within its mission. So we are on the same page there. I do however insist on knowing WHICH fundamental rights ICANN are signed up to respect.
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 agree that is that it should be clear - that is why I think the working through of the policies and bylaws envisaged in the draft language now will be important, but will probably take some time to avoid any unintended consequences. There are two questions: what range or existing statement of human rights should be adopted and then to which parts of ICANN's operations etc do they apply. On 9/3/15 1:21 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I think I also said earlier that I totally agree that ICANN's obligations in this regard be limited to what it does within its mission.
So we are on the same page there.
I do however insist on knowing WHICH fundamental rights ICANN are signed up to respect.
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.
_______________________________________________ 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
I have added the following comment to the document: I had thought we were trying to draft actual bylaws language (as reflected in the CCWG Proposal). This is instead a sort of Board statement of support for Human Rights (variously defined by various members of the WP) and statement of intention that bylaws (and policies) will be developed in future (presumably in WS2. That may be a better approach than amending the bylaws now, but it is certainly a different one. Is that now our plan? On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com> wrote:
I agree that is that it should be clear - that is why I think the working through of the policies and bylaws envisaged in the draft language now will be important, but will probably take some time to avoid any unintended consequences. There are two questions: what range or existing statement of human rights should be adopted and then to which parts of ICANN's operations etc do they apply.
On 9/3/15 1:21 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I think I also said earlier that I totally agree that ICANN's obligations in this regard be limited to what it does within its mission.
So we are on the same page there.
I do however insist on knowing WHICH fundamental rights ICANN are signed up to respect.
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.
_______________________________________________ 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
. Is that now our plan?
hope not. avri On 02-Sep-15 20:03, Greg Shatan wrote:
I have added the following comment to the document:
I had thought we were trying to draft actual bylaws language (as reflected in the CCWG Proposal). This is instead a sort of Board statement of support for Human Rights (variously defined by various members of the WP) and statement of intention that bylaws (and policies) will be developed in future (presumably in WS2. That may be a better approach than amending the bylaws now, but it is certainly a different one. Is that now our plan?
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com <mailto:paul.twomey@argopacific.com>> wrote:
I agree that is that it should be clear - that is why I think the working through of the policies and bylaws envisaged in the draft language now will be important, but will probably take some time to avoid any unintended consequences. There are two questions: what range or existing statement of human rights should be adopted and then to which parts of ICANN's operations etc do they apply.
On 9/3/15 1:21 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I think I also said earlier that I totally agree that ICANN's obligations in this regard be limited to what it does within its mission.
So we are on the same page there.
I do however insist on knowing WHICH fundamental rights ICANN are signed up to respect.
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.
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific
US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 <tel:%2B1%20310%20279%202366> Aust M: +61 416 238 501 <tel:%2B61%20416%20238%20501>
www.argopacific.com <http://www.argopacific.com>
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ 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
. Is that now our plan? hope not.
On today's call, which was somewhat sparsely attended, I believe we established that was not our plan, and we are essentially back to Plan A: a bylaws amendment in actual bylaws language, and a rationale/framework document. On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
. Is that now our plan?
hope not.
avri
On 02-Sep-15 20:03, Greg Shatan wrote:
I have added the following comment to the document:
I had thought we were trying to draft actual bylaws language (as reflected in the CCWG Proposal). This is instead a sort of Board statement of support for Human Rights (variously defined by various members of the WP) and statement of intention that bylaws (and policies) will be developed in future (presumably in WS2. That may be a better approach than amending the bylaws now, but it is certainly a different one. Is that now our plan?
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com <mailto:paul.twomey@argopacific.com>> wrote:
I agree that is that it should be clear - that is why I think the working through of the policies and bylaws envisaged in the draft language now will be important, but will probably take some time to avoid any unintended consequences. There are two questions: what range or existing statement of human rights should be adopted and then to which parts of ICANN's operations etc do they apply.
On 9/3/15 1:21 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I think I also said earlier that I totally agree that ICANN's obligations in this regard be limited to what it does within its mission.
So we are on the same page there.
I do however insist on knowing WHICH fundamental rights ICANN are signed up to respect.
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.
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific
US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 <tel:%2B1%20310%20279%202366> Aust M: +61 416 238 501 <tel:%2B61%20416%20238%20501>
www.argopacific.com <http://www.argopacific.com>
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ 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
That is the plan Saludos, León Enviado desde el móvil. Disculpa brevedad y errores tipográficos. El sept 2, 2015, a las 8:04 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió:
. Is that now our plan? hope not.
On today's call, which was somewhat sparsely attended, I believe we established that was not our plan, and we are essentially back to Plan A: a bylaws amendment in actual bylaws language, and a rationale/framework document.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
. Is that now our plan?
hope not.
avri
On 02-Sep-15 20:03, Greg Shatan wrote:
I have added the following comment to the document:
I had thought we were trying to draft actual bylaws language (as reflected in the CCWG Proposal). This is instead a sort of Board statement of support for Human Rights (variously defined by various members of the WP) and statement of intention that bylaws (and policies) will be developed in future (presumably in WS2. That may be a better approach than amending the bylaws now, but it is certainly a different one. Is that now our plan?
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com <mailto:paul.twomey@argopacific.com>> wrote:
I agree that is that it should be clear - that is why I think the working through of the policies and bylaws envisaged in the draft language now will be important, but will probably take some time to avoid any unintended consequences. There are two questions: what range or existing statement of human rights should be adopted and then to which parts of ICANN's operations etc do they apply.
On 9/3/15 1:21 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I think I also said earlier that I totally agree that ICANN's obligations in this regard be limited to what it does within its mission.
So we are on the same page there.
I do however insist on knowing WHICH fundamental rights ICANN are signed up to respect.
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.
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific
US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 <tel:%2B1%20310%20279%202366> Aust M: +61 416 238 501 <tel:%2B61%20416%20238%20501>
www.argopacific.com <http://www.argopacific.com>
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
And I like the plan :-)-O I personally prefer if we did most of the work on the list and then read the final product once each on two calls before we send it up tp the Plenum. I have to work for a living and given my profession have after hour commitments. el On 2015-09-03 05:57, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
That is the plan
Saludos,
León
Enviado desde el móvil. Disculpa brevedad y errores tipográficos.
El sept 2, 2015, a las 8:04 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió:
> . Is that now our plan? hope not.
On today's call, which was somewhat sparsely attended, I believe we established that was not our plan, and we are essentially back to Plan A: a bylaws amendment in actual bylaws language, and a rationale/framework document.
[...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
I was thinking in terms of ICANN to be held primarily accountable for its own human rights performance, not so much for those entities it interacts with. But, the "just following orders" principle of looking away is not acceptable to me. At all. The point is clearly that human rights are universal and not defined by countries' laws. el On 2015-09-02 16:16, Paul Twomey wrote:
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 [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Please do not send stuff with a sender address of drive-shares-noreply@google.com as it messes with security. el On 2015-09-02 06:18, 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: [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Hi Leon, I think I made a mistake in commenting on the Google doc – it shows as anonymous and that was not at all my intent. Here are my comments: I believe that the best approach is to make a high-level commitment to human rights as presently articulated in the two alternatives in paragraph 151 of the CCWG’s 2nd draft proposal, and to leave further development in WorkStream Two. The detail in this document, including the wish to ensure rights as if ICANN is a state actor and the statement of intent to develop bylaws and policy to give full effect to these rights, needs clarification (including the limitations on liability that we seemed to agree on the last teleconference). It is important, in my personal opinion, to make sure that ICANN and parties working through or with ICANN observe human rights but not be cast in the role of being the human rights police. David McAuley From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (via Google Docs) Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 1:18 AM To: wp4@icann.org Subject: [Wp4] Draft high level wording on Human Rights - Invitation to comment León Felipe Sánchez Ambía<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> has invited you to comment on the following document: [Image removed by sender.] Draft high level wording on Human Rights<https://docs.google.com/document/d/15t32Y7DyzGCAR21XT9koN9y2hNK_nAifuNZGwaFf...> [Image removed by sender. Sender's profile photo]Dear 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_nAifuNZGwaFf...> 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. [Image removed by sender. Logo for Google Docs]<https://drive.google.com>
participants (10)
-
Avri Doria -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (via Google Docs) -
Matthew Shears -
McAuley, David -
Niels ten Oever -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Twomey