Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected
-------- Forwarded Message -------- with corrections Hi, I am sure I missed some, but the ones I found going through the email while doing some prep work earlier today. Please let me know of any formulation I missed. Doria 1 Work to ensure that ICANN respects human right obligations within its mission, accounts for impact on human rights in policy creation, and adheres to the "Respect, Protect and Remedy" framework developed by the UN. Curry 1 Work to ensure that ICANN respects human rights within its mission and accounts for the impact on human rights in its policy creation, policy implementation, review and assessment. Doria 2 In order to enure that openness of the Internet within ICANN's mission may be maintained, human rights impact assessments will be done on ICANN policies [as appropriate] Doria 3 ICANN will be committed to respect fundamental human rights in its operations Drazek 1 Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information. Arasteh 1 (I know there is one but i can't find the text.) Supports Lisse 1 Shatan 1 Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights Drazek as amended by Lisse Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect fundamental human rights, in particular the exercise of free expression, free flow of information and due process Lisse 1 ICANN will respect fundamental human rights Doria 4 (with offlist help) Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Dear All, While I agree with many of the texts / options referred to above, my preference is Arasteh 2 ( I have now found the text ) except Drazak 1 AND Drazak ameded by Lisse ( As due process has a vague connotation ) Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).and in the International Covenant on civil and Poli tical Rights The addition is important as it refers to right to education and other rights as described in Article 19 of the Covenant . I hereby withdraw ARASTEH 1 in favour of Arasteh 2 to be renumbered as Arasteh 1 Regards Kavouss 2015-08-05 14:59 GMT+02:00 Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:
-------- Forwarded Message --------
with corrections
Hi,
I am sure I missed some, but the ones I found going through the email while doing some prep work earlier today. Please let me know of any formulation I missed.
Doria 1
Work to ensure that ICANN respects human right obligations within its mission, accounts for impact on human rights in policy creation, and adheres to the "Respect, Protect and Remedy" framework developed by the UN.
Curry 1
Work to ensure that ICANN respects human rights within its mission and accounts for the impact on human rights in its policy creation, policy implementation, review and assessment.
Doria 2
In order to enure that openness of the Internet within ICANN's mission may be maintained, human rights impact assessments will be done on ICANN policies [as appropriate]
Doria 3
ICANN will be committed to respect fundamental human rights in its operations
Drazek 1
Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information.
Arasteh 1
(I know there is one but i can't find the text.) Supports Lisse 1
Shatan 1
Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized fundamental human rights
Drazek as amended by Lisse
Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect fundamental human rights, in particular the exercise of free expression, free flow of information and due process
Lisse 1
ICANN will respect fundamental human rights
Doria 4 (with offlist help)
Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
--- 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
Dear colleagues While I very much appreciate the postive intent of the different texts proposed for a by-law, (and indeed have commented upon/contributed to several), I would like to suggest that the most appropriate way forward in starting WP4 might not be to compare and contrast competing worldviews with a view to synthesis, but instead to zoom out for a second, and let us look at this a little more holistically (or as a lawyer might put it, purposively rather than literally). With that mind I gratefully adopt and recommend the earlier suggestion (made by Avri, I think), that the United Nations' "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights" on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations are directly relevant to the purpose we are trying to acheive; and accordingly, we perhaps start out by developing a common understanding of what we want to achieve in the (very much needed) By-Law that we expect to see come out of this. Paul Twomey, Kavouss Arasteh and others clearly highlight the dangers of too-wide drafting, leading to mission creep. I agree with this. And I also submit that the dangers of an over-narrow, or too-literal approach would lead to the proposed by-law (whatever it says) being ineffective and irrelevant. Perhaps we should start by reviewing how ICANN (*WITHIN ITS MISSION*) might have effects on fundamental rights of the people and organisations it comes into contact with, and from there we can work out how to integrate a commitment that becomes part of the organisational DNA such that respect for fundamental rights is seen as a positive aspect of ICANN's work, and not a burden to be reluctantly shouldered? On 08/05/2015 02:42 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, While I agree with many of the texts / options referred to above, my
Hi, While this is important, isn't this a broader discussion than is need for WS1? This seems to me to be the work we need to commit ourselves to for WS2, not the work we need to do to get a bylaws value commitment in WS1. So while it will be good for everyone to read this document, the extensive process suggested below seems to be front loading the issue. I would not wish to see such front loading used to [accidentally] undo the decisions already made about needing wording for WS1. avri On 06-Aug-15 08:05, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Dear colleagues
While I very much appreciate the postive intent of the different texts proposed for a by-law, (and indeed have commented upon/contributed to several), I would like to suggest that the most appropriate way forward in starting WP4 might not be to compare and contrast competing worldviews with a view to synthesis, but instead to zoom out for a second, and let us look at this a little more holistically (or as a lawyer might put it, purposively rather than literally).
With that mind I gratefully adopt and recommend the earlier suggestion (made by Avri, I think), that the United Nations' "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights" on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations are directly relevant to the purpose we are trying to acheive; and accordingly, we perhaps start out by developing a common understanding of what we want to achieve in the (very much needed) By-Law that we expect to see come out of this.
Paul Twomey, Kavouss Arasteh and others clearly highlight the dangers of too-wide drafting, leading to mission creep.
I agree with this.
And I also submit that the dangers of an over-narrow, or too-literal approach would lead to the proposed by-law (whatever it says) being ineffective and irrelevant.
Perhaps we should start by reviewing how ICANN (*WITHIN ITS MISSION*) might have effects on fundamental rights of the people and organisations it comes into contact with, and from there we can work out how to integrate a commitment that becomes part of the organisational DNA such that respect for fundamental rights is seen as a positive aspect of ICANN's work, and not a burden to be reluctantly shouldered?
On 08/05/2015 02:42 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, While I agree with many of the texts / options referred to above, my
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
Avri, we need to get this right. We are not going to let the outcome dictated by arbitrary and self imposed time frames. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Aug 6, 2015, at 13:52, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
While this is important, isn't this a broader discussion than is need for WS1? This seems to me to be the work we need to commit ourselves to for WS2, not the work we need to do to get a bylaws value commitment in WS1.
So while it will be good for everyone to read this document, the extensive process suggested below seems to be front loading the issue. I would not wish to see such front loading used to [accidentally] undo the decisions already made about needing wording for WS1.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 08:05, Nigel Roberts wrote: Dear colleagues
While I very much appreciate the postive intent of the different texts proposed for a by-law, (and indeed have commented upon/contributed to several), I would like to suggest that the most appropriate way forward in starting WP4 might not be to compare and contrast competing worldviews with a view to synthesis, but instead to zoom out for a second, and let us look at this a little more holistically (or as a lawyer might put it, purposively rather than literally).
With that mind I gratefully adopt and recommend the earlier suggestion (made by Avri, I think), that the United Nations' "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights" on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations are directly relevant to the purpose we are trying to acheive; and accordingly, we perhaps start out by developing a common understanding of what we want to achieve in the (very much needed) By-Law that we expect to see come out of this.
Paul Twomey, Kavouss Arasteh and others clearly highlight the dangers of too-wide drafting, leading to mission creep.
I agree with this.
And I also submit that the dangers of an over-narrow, or too-literal approach would lead to the proposed by-law (whatever it says) being ineffective and irrelevant.
Perhaps we should start by reviewing how ICANN (*WITHIN ITS MISSION*) might have effects on fundamental rights of the people and organisations it comes into contact with, and from there we can work out how to integrate a commitment that becomes part of the organisational DNA such that respect for fundamental rights is seen as a positive aspect of ICANN's work, and not a burden to be reluctantly shouldered?
On 08/05/2015 02:42 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, While I agree with many of the texts / options referred to above, my
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
Hi, In this case I think there may be a number of solutions that are right, especially when we remember all we are trying to do for WS1 is to record a bylaws commitment to respect human rights in the work ICANN does. We are not trying to solve all the complex of issues that we may want too bring up. We need to find a way to just pick one. I really think trying to wordsmith as simple a statement as possible is still out best alternative. Though I can think of no better reason to miss our deadlines than a discussion of ICANN's Corporate responsibility to respect human rights, something I think I could work on forever, it would be nice if we didn't miss the deadline because of the discussion. But if we do miss the deadline, that's life. We have seen that the sky does not fall when a deadline is missed. And this is important. avri On 06-Aug-15 09:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Avri,
we need to get this right.
We are not going to let the outcome dictated by arbitrary and self imposed time frames.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Aug 6, 2015, at 13:52, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
While this is important, isn't this a broader discussion than is need for WS1? This seems to me to be the work we need to commit ourselves to for WS2, not the work we need to do to get a bylaws value commitment in WS1.
So while it will be good for everyone to read this document, the extensive process suggested below seems to be front loading the issue. I would not wish to see such front loading used to [accidentally] undo the decisions already made about needing wording for WS1.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 08:05, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Dear colleagues
While I very much appreciate the postive intent of the different texts proposed for a by-law, (and indeed have commented upon/contributed to several), I would like to suggest that the most appropriate way forward in starting WP4 might not be to compare and contrast competing worldviews with a view to synthesis, but instead to zoom out for a second, and let us look at this a little more holistically (or as a lawyer might put it, purposively rather than literally).
With that mind I gratefully adopt and recommend the earlier suggestion (made by Avri, I think), that the United Nations' "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights" on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations are directly relevant to the purpose we are trying to acheive; and accordingly, we perhaps start out by developing a common understanding of what we want to achieve in the (very much needed) By-Law that we expect to see come out of this.
Paul Twomey, Kavouss Arasteh and others clearly highlight the dangers of too-wide drafting, leading to mission creep.
I agree with this.
And I also submit that the dangers of an over-narrow, or too-literal approach would lead to the proposed by-law (whatever it says) being ineffective and irrelevant.
Perhaps we should start by reviewing how ICANN (*WITHIN ITS MISSION*) might have effects on fundamental rights of the people and organisations it comes into contact with, and from there we can work out how to integrate a commitment that becomes part of the organisational DNA such that respect for fundamental rights is seen as a positive aspect of ICANN's work, and not a burden to be reluctantly shouldered?
On 08/05/2015 02:42 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, While I agree with many of the texts / options referred to above, my
Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto: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 <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
Avri, I am in full agreement with you. We need something we can all live with in WS1 and can sort out the casualties in WS2, if any. el On 2015-08-06 17:40, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
In this case I think there may be a number of solutions that are right, especially when we remember all we are trying to do for WS1 is to record a bylaws commitment to respect human rights in the work ICANN does. We are not trying to solve all the complex of issues that we may want too bring up. We need to find a way to just pick one.
I really think trying to wordsmith as simple a statement as possible is still out best alternative.
Though I can think of no better reason to miss our deadlines than a discussion of ICANN's Corporate responsibility to respect human rights, something I think I could work on forever, it would be nice if we didn't miss the deadline because of the discussion. But if we do miss the deadline, that's life. We have seen that the sky does not fall when a deadline is missed. And this is important.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 09:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Avri,
we need to get this right.
We are not going to let the outcome dictated by arbitrary and self imposed time frames.
el [...]
I think we need to do more than just wordsmith a simple statement if its going to be a part of ICANN's core values in the ICANN bylaws. The bylaws provision is just the tip of the iceberg. We need to have a common understanding of what we mean and what existing human rights standards (declarations, conventions, etc.) we are referring to, and we need to have a sense of the consequences (intended and otherwise) of our efforts. Some of us may have spent many years and many hours working with and getting to understand the human rights landscape; others have not. Some of us may say we know what we mean when we refer to human rights. That's not enough. We all need to know what we mean, and we need to know that we mean basically the same thing. This doesn't have to be exhaustive (or exhausting). There's certain a lot of work that can be put into WS2, in terms of fleshing things out, considering issues such as impacts assessments, reviews, etc. But we can't just stop with a statement and leave its meaning for WS2. Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.* Greg ________ * Recognizing this is a somewhat culturally specific term, I offer a brief explanation. "Poke" is an archaic term for a bag, the advice literally being given is 'don't buy a pig until you have seen it.' Per Wikipedia, "The phrase can also be applied to accepting an idea or plan without a full understanding of its basis." In the English language, this can be traced back to at least 1530: *Fraser's Magazine,* 1858, reprinted a piece from Richard Hill's (or
Hilles') *Common-place Book*, 1530, which gave this advice to market traders: "When ye proffer the pigge open the poke." http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-pig-in-a-poke.html
NB: This is apparently not the same Richard Hill dealt with from time to time in these and other lists. It is presumably a complete coincidence that the said Mr. Hill's organization is called APIG. On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Avri,
I am in full agreement with you.
We need something we can all live with in WS1 and can sort out the casualties in WS2, if any.
el
On 2015-08-06 17:40, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
In this case I think there may be a number of solutions that are right, especially when we remember all we are trying to do for WS1 is to record a bylaws commitment to respect human rights in the work ICANN does. We are not trying to solve all the complex of issues that we may want too bring up. We need to find a way to just pick one.
I really think trying to wordsmith as simple a statement as possible is still out best alternative.
Though I can think of no better reason to miss our deadlines than a discussion of ICANN's Corporate responsibility to respect human rights, something I think I could work on forever, it would be nice if we didn't miss the deadline because of the discussion. But if we do miss the deadline, that's life. We have seen that the sky does not fall when a deadline is missed. And this is important.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 09:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Avri,
we need to get this right.
We are not going to let the outcome dictated by arbitrary and self imposed time frames.
el [...]
Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
Greg This is EXACTLY what I had in mind when I wrote my earlier email. Very well put. Nigel On 08/06/2015 07:28 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I think we need to do more than just wordsmith a simple statement if its going to be a part of ICANN's core values in the ICANN bylaws. The bylaws provision is just the tip of the iceberg. We need to have a common understanding of what we mean and what existing human rights standards (declarations, conventions, etc.) we are referring to, and we need to have a sense of the consequences (intended and otherwise) of our efforts. Some of us may have spent many years and many hours working with and getting to understand the human rights landscape; others have not. Some of us may say we know what we mean when we refer to human rights. That's not enough. We all need to know what we mean, and we need to know that we mean basically the same thing. This doesn't have to be exhaustive (or exhausting).
There's certain a lot of work that can be put into WS2, in terms of fleshing things out, considering issues such as impacts assessments, reviews, etc. But we can't just stop with a statement and leave its meaning for WS2. Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.*
Greg ________ * Recognizing this is a somewhat culturally specific term, I offer a brief explanation. "Poke" is an archaic term for a bag, the advice literally being given is 'don't buy a pig until you have seen it.' Per Wikipedia, "The phrase can also be applied to accepting an idea or plan without a full understanding of its basis." In the English language, this can be traced back to at least 1530:
/Fraser's Magazine,/ 1858, reprinted a piece from Richard Hill's (or Hilles') /Common-place Book/, 1530, which gave this advice to market traders: "When ye proffer the pigge open the poke." http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-pig-in-a-poke.html
NB: This is apparently not the same Richard Hill dealt with from time to time in these and other lists. It is presumably a complete coincidence that the said Mr. Hill's organization is called APIG.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Avri,
I am in full agreement with you.
We need something we can all live with in WS1 and can sort out the casualties in WS2, if any.
el
On 2015-08-06 17:40, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > In this case I think there may be a number of solutions that are > right, especially when we remember all we are trying to do for WS1 > is to record a bylaws commitment to respect human rights in the > work ICANN does. We are not trying to solve all the complex of > issues that we may want too bring up. We need to find a way to > just pick one. > > I really think trying to wordsmith as simple a statement as > possible is still out best alternative. > > Though I can think of no better reason to miss our deadlines than > a discussion of ICANN's Corporate responsibility to respect human > rights, something I think I could work on forever, it would be > nice if we didn't miss the deadline because of the discussion. > But if we do miss the deadline, that's life. We have seen that > the sky does not fall when a deadline is missed. And this is > important. > > avri > > > > > > On 06-Aug-15 09:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: >> Avri, >> >> we need to get this right. >> >> We are not going to let the outcome dictated by arbitrary and >> self imposed time frames. >> >> el [...] _______________________________________________ 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
Speaking from experience of (fortunately only 2 years) having lived in a racist dictatorship, I know human rights when I see them :-)-O But so far we all seem to be in agreement. Nice going... el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 19:28, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we need to do more than just wordsmith a simple statement if its going to be a part of ICANN's core values in the ICANN bylaws. The bylaws provision is just the tip of the iceberg. We need to have a common understanding of what we mean and what existing human rights standards (declarations, conventions, etc.) we are referring to, and we need to have a sense of the consequences (intended and otherwise) of our efforts. Some of us may have spent many years and many hours working with and getting to understand the human rights landscape; others have not. Some of us may say we know what we mean when we refer to human rights. That's not enough. We all need to know what we mean, and we need to know that we mean basically the same thing. This doesn't have to be exhaustive (or exhausting).
There's certain a lot of work that can be put into WS2, in terms of fleshing things out, considering issues such as impacts assessments, reviews, etc. But we can't just stop with a statement and leave its meaning for WS2. Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.*
Greg ________ * Recognizing this is a somewhat culturally specific term, I offer a brief explanation. "Poke" is an archaic term for a bag, the advice literally being given is 'don't buy a pig until you have seen it.' Per Wikipedia, "The phrase can also be applied to accepting an idea or plan without a full understanding of its basis." In the English language, this can be traced back to at least 1530:
Fraser's Magazine, 1858, reprinted a piece from Richard Hill's (or Hilles') Common-place Book, 1530, which gave this advice to market traders: "When ye proffer the pigge open the poke." http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-pig-in-a-poke.html
NB: This is apparently not the same Richard Hill dealt with from time to time in these and other lists. It is presumably a complete coincidence that the said Mr. Hill's organization is called APIG.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote: Avri,
I am in full agreement with you.
We need something we can all live with in WS1 and can sort out the casualties in WS2, if any.
el
On 2015-08-06 17:40, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
In this case I think there may be a number of solutions that are right, especially when we remember all we are trying to do for WS1 is to record a bylaws commitment to respect human rights in the work ICANN does. We are not trying to solve all the complex of issues that we may want too bring up. We need to find a way to just pick one.
I really think trying to wordsmith as simple a statement as possible is still out best alternative.
Though I can think of no better reason to miss our deadlines than a discussion of ICANN's Corporate responsibility to respect human rights, something I think I could work on forever, it would be nice if we didn't miss the deadline because of the discussion. But if we do miss the deadline, that's life. We have seen that the sky does not fall when a deadline is missed. And this is important.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 09:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Avri,
we need to get this right.
We are not going to let the outcome dictated by arbitrary and self imposed time frames.
el [...]
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
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote:
Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging.... On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote:
Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- 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
Hi, Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech. I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression. avri On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
Avri, You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus. Greg On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
Avri, same tactics as usual. Not unexpected. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page <https://twitter.com/GregShatan> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Avri,
same tactics as usual.
Not unexpected.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
In terms of next steps, here is a list I put in an email about a week ago, slightly adapted for the current context. - study/analysis/discussion of the underlying documents (treaties, conventions, guidelines, standards, etc.) (which in turn requires determining which documents are relevant -- there have been several helpful suggestions but that can't automatically be taken as exhaustive or on-target), - understanding the rights put forth in these documents ( and any other rights put forth as human rights in the WG) , - understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact "human rights", - understanding how these rights may interact and be balanced amongst themselves, - understanding how these rights relate to and interact with ICANN's mission and activities, - understanding how these rights interact with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions and how these interactions would take place and be resolved in the ICANN framework), - understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws and regulations (some of which embody, in differing fashions and degrees, relevant international treaties and conventions) - how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's Corporate Social Responsibility and what efforts have been made or need to be made in that regard , - find out how other organizations similar to ICANN (e.g., I* organizations) have dealt with these issues, - determining which Bylaws amendment is the most appropriate outcome relating to this issue (and noting that various proposals have been floated in recent weeks), - understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other B ylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative ICANN documents, - determining what efforts may need to take place and what groups may need to be formed as a result of a Bylaw amendment (including without limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or Cross-Community Working Groups ) , - understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"), - what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.), - whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which are already in place, - what the result, effects and consequences (intentional and unintentional) of various impact analysis outcomes would be (either on present policy and implementation, on future policy and implementation and on other ICANN activities). I think the last 4 points can be left to WS2. For the rest, we'll need to balance work in WS1 vs. WS2, but I think each requires some work in WS1 to have a framework of understanding the meaning and consequences of a Bylaws amendment, and to determine the best way forward in WS1. A number of these could (and probably should) generate (or be recast as) "Stress Tests." This is very much a first draft (or 1.1, since I did revisit it once), so further contributions and revisions are welcomed. Greg On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page <https://twitter.com/GregShatan>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Avri,
same tactics as usual.
Not unexpected.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi Greg, Thanks for this. I think many of these issues can be relatively simple resolved. Underlying documents to human rights: - - Universal Declaration of Human Rights - - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights These have been agreed upon by practically all states and are inherent part of the body of international law. I don't think we would need to re-discuss their validity, universality or applicability here. I also don't think that a detailed discussion of the actual implementation of this work needs to be discussed here. Detailed implementation of policy does not belong in the bylaws. If you want to read more about it, I think the reports that Article19 produced for the CCWP on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights could be a good starter. [0] As well as of course the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights [1] and the ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights [2]. This is not something that we are reinventing here, but a practice that many companies have already adopted, look for instance at Cisco [3][4]. Best, Niels [0] tinyurl.com/cchumanrights [1] http://business-humanrights.org/en/un-guiding-principles [2] http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/eu-sector-guidance/EC-Guides/ICT/EC-Guide_ICT.pd f [3] http://csr.cisco.com/cdnorigin/media/documents/Human-Rights_129973805781 330000.pdf [4] http://www.cisco.com/assets/csr/pdf/CSR_Report_2014.pdf On 08/06/2015 11:35 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
In terms of next steps, here is a list I put in an email about a week ago, slightly adapted for the current context.
* study/analysis/discussion of the underlying documents (treaties, conventions, guidelines, standards, etc.) (which in turn requires determining which documents are relevant -- there have been several helpful suggestions but that can't automatically be taken as exhaustive or on-target), o understanding the rights put forth in these documents ( and any other rights put forth as human rights in the WG) , o understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact "human rights", o understanding how these rights may interact and be balanced amongst themselves,
* understanding how these rights relate to and interact with ICANN's mission and activities, o understanding how these rights interact with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions and how these interactions would take place and be resolved in the ICANN framework), o understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws and regulations (some of which embody, in differing fashions and degrees, relevant international treaties and conventions) o how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's Corporate Social Responsibility and what efforts have been made or need to be made in that regard , * find out how other organizations similar to ICANN (e.g., I* organizations) have dealt with these issues, * determining which Bylaws amendment is the most appropriate outcome relating to this issue (and noting that various proposals have been floated in recent weeks), * understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other B ylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative ICANN documents, * determining what efforts may need to take place and what groups may need to be formed as a result of a Bylaw amendment (including without limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or Cross-Community Working Groups ) , * understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"), * what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.), * whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which are already in place, * what the result, effects and consequences (intentional and unintentional) of various impact analysis outcomes would be (either on present policy and implementation, on future policy and implementation and on other ICANN activities).
I think the last 4 points can be left to WS2. For the rest, we'll need to balance work in WS1 vs. WS2, but I think each requires some work in WS1 to have a framework of understanding the meaning and consequences of a Bylaws amendment, and to determine the best way forward in WS1. A number of these could (and probably should) generate (or be recast as) "Stress Tests."
This is very much a first draft (or 1.1, since I did revisit it once), so further contributions and revisions are welcomed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page <https://twitter.com/GregShatan>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Avri,
same tactics as usual.
Not unexpected.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Avri,
You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote:
Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ 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
- -- 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 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVxG/YAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjptqQH+gNtUJuauc65ODtFCxrk3J++ zrt5eubth47jB5rxMbjhnn/inx5vSHdRfFs7Mo9qIX1OV8q9kXEoyK46No9YsCEq Ob5h7yz2KbXUdTvcOU1JSWtGaKGe/GeJLLU2GvJv3eaBvjNYti/8dSw1niMxtjAZ OHu3XfVPj9x/jFIjBx+QEl8HvBjDRGkrtyLinWMFKHVo2MyCYhq6m6khopb1UegM A7CqnJrZHi0PQrmxjBJKO0ZvVpcYXwJ6G5PvdpLtyjqBOyoSYKkQHU/IrBWVA0ZD fPUJ0YBW2vA/+5zUniTRWQvjYVBa/JZhzDPj45g7MF40KW34hlf5zGUhZkuR9C8= =+Nfq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dear Neil Thank you very much for your mindful vision and your advice. As you have rightly supporting the high level reference to these two docs. We beed not to get into the details of any article of these two agreement Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Aug 2015, at 10:44, Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Hi Greg,
Thanks for this. I think many of these issues can be relatively simple resolved.
Underlying documents to human rights:
- - Universal Declaration of Human Rights - - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
These have been agreed upon by practically all states and are inherent part of the body of international law. I don't think we would need to re-discuss their validity, universality or applicability here.
I also don't think that a detailed discussion of the actual implementation of this work needs to be discussed here. Detailed implementation of policy does not belong in the bylaws.
If you want to read more about it, I think the reports that Article19 produced for the CCWP on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights could be a good starter. [0] As well as of course the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights [1] and the ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights [2].
This is not something that we are reinventing here, but a practice that many companies have already adopted, look for instance at Cisco [3][4].
Best,
Niels
[0] tinyurl.com/cchumanrights [1] http://business-humanrights.org/en/un-guiding-principles [2] http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/eu-sector-guidance/EC-Guides/ICT/EC-Guide_ICT.pd f [3] http://csr.cisco.com/cdnorigin/media/documents/Human-Rights_129973805781 330000.pdf [4] http://www.cisco.com/assets/csr/pdf/CSR_Report_2014.pdf
On 08/06/2015 11:35 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: In terms of next steps, here is a list I put in an email about a week ago, slightly adapted for the current context.
* study/analysis/discussion of the underlying documents (treaties, conventions, guidelines, standards, etc.) (which in turn requires determining which documents are relevant -- there have been several helpful suggestions but that can't automatically be taken as exhaustive or on-target), o understanding the rights put forth in these documents ( and any other rights put forth as human rights in the WG) , o understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact "human rights", o understanding how these rights may interact and be balanced amongst themselves,
* understanding how these rights relate to and interact with ICANN's mission and activities, o understanding how these rights interact with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions and how these interactions would take place and be resolved in the ICANN framework), o understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws and regulations (some of which embody, in differing fashions and degrees, relevant international treaties and conventions) o how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's Corporate Social Responsibility and what efforts have been made or need to be made in that regard , * find out how other organizations similar to ICANN (e.g., I* organizations) have dealt with these issues, * determining which Bylaws amendment is the most appropriate outcome relating to this issue (and noting that various proposals have been floated in recent weeks), * understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other B ylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative ICANN documents, * determining what efforts may need to take place and what groups may need to be formed as a result of a Bylaw amendment (including without limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or Cross-Community Working Groups ) , * understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"), * what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.), * whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which are already in place, * what the result, effects and consequences (intentional and unintentional) of various impact analysis outcomes would be (either on present policy and implementation, on future policy and implementation and on other ICANN activities).
I think the last 4 points can be left to WS2. For the rest, we'll need to balance work in WS1 vs. WS2, but I think each requires some work in WS1 to have a framework of understanding the meaning and consequences of a Bylaws amendment, and to determine the best way forward in WS1. A number of these could (and probably should) generate (or be recast as) "Stress Tests."
This is very much a first draft (or 1.1, since I did revisit it once), so further contributions and revisions are welcomed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page <https://twitter.com/GregShatan>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Avri,
same tactics as usual.
Not unexpected.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Avri,
You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote: I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ 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
- -- 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
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVxG/YAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjptqQH+gNtUJuauc65ODtFCxrk3J++ zrt5eubth47jB5rxMbjhnn/inx5vSHdRfFs7Mo9qIX1OV8q9kXEoyK46No9YsCEq Ob5h7yz2KbXUdTvcOU1JSWtGaKGe/GeJLLU2GvJv3eaBvjNYti/8dSw1niMxtjAZ OHu3XfVPj9x/jFIjBx+QEl8HvBjDRGkrtyLinWMFKHVo2MyCYhq6m6khopb1UegM A7CqnJrZHi0PQrmxjBJKO0ZvVpcYXwJ6G5PvdpLtyjqBOyoSYKkQHU/IrBWVA0ZD fPUJ0YBW2vA/+5zUniTRWQvjYVBa/JZhzDPj45g7MF40KW34hlf5zGUhZkuR9C8= =+Nfq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
Niels, First, welcome to the CCWG on Enhancing ICANN's Accountability. I suppose it's never to late to join in. I look forward to your contributions on a wide variety of issues. My responses to your email are inline below. On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org
wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Hi Greg,
Thanks for this. I think many of these issues can be relatively simple resolved.
GS: I tend to agree; of course, our definitions of simple may be somewhat different....
Underlying documents to human rights:
- - Universal Declaration of Human Rights - - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
GS: This is one possible list, and it has the virtue of being short and manageable. We've discussed a number of other underlying documents on this and other lists. I see that you mention two of them below: the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights , and the ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights . I understand that these are less foundational and more implementation-oriented than the first two documents you mention, but from the point of considering what we are doing, these are (or rather, could be, if we adopt them) underlying documents. The Cisco report you cite also mentions "eight Core Labor Conventions developed by the International Labor Organization (ILO), and the United Nations Global Compact." The AGB mentions the following as examples of "international law" (though not specifically as examples of human rights laws): - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) - The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) - The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) - The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination - Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women - The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights - The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment - The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families - Slavery Convention - Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - Convention on the Rights of the Child I honestly don't know which if any of these have relevance to fundamental
human rights and ICANN's mission. I suppose we could wait until Workstream 2 to determine which if any of these should be explicitly seen as helping to define the Human Rights to which ICANN is committing.
These have been agreed upon by practically all states and are inherent part of the body of international law. I don't think we would need to re-discuss their validity, universality or applicability here.
I also don't think that a detailed discussion of the actual implementation of this work needs to be discussed here. Detailed implementation of policy does not belong in the bylaws.
GS: I agree with your second sentence but not your first. I don't think anyone has suggested that detailed implementation of policy belongs *in* the Bylaws. But the Bylaws are the tip of the iceberg. We do need reasonably detailed discussion to come to a common understanding of what ICANN is committing to and what the results and consequences of that commitment are. ICANN does not adopt or amend bylaws without relatively detailed rationales and underlying work. This should and must be the same for this, especially since it is being adopted as a "Core Value."
If you want to read more about it, I think the reports that Article19 produced for the CCWP on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights could be a good starter. [0] As well as of course the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights [1] and the ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights [2].
This is not something that we are reinventing here, but a practice that many companies have already adopted, look for instance at Cisco [3][4].
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.) Greg
Best,
Niels
[0] tinyurl.com/cchumanrights [1] http://business-humanrights.org/en/un-guiding-principles [2] http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/eu-sector-guidance/EC-Guides/ICT/EC-Guide_ICT.pd f <http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/eu-sector-guidance/EC-Guides/ICT/EC-Guide_ICT.pdf> [3] http://csr.cisco.com/cdnorigin/media/documents/Human-Rights_129973805781 330000.pdf <http://csr.cisco.com/cdnorigin/media/documents/Human-Rights_1299738057813300...> [4] http://www.cisco.com/assets/csr/pdf/CSR_Report_2014.pdf
On 08/06/2015 11:35 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
In terms of next steps, here is a list I put in an email about a week ago, slightly adapted for the current context.
* study/analysis/discussion of the underlying documents (treaties, conventions, guidelines, standards, etc.) (which in turn requires determining which documents are relevant -- there have been several helpful suggestions but that can't automatically be taken as exhaustive or on-target), o understanding the rights put forth in these documents ( and any other rights put forth as human rights in the WG) , o understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact "human rights", o understanding how these rights may interact and be balanced amongst themselves,
* understanding how these rights relate to and interact with ICANN's mission and activities, o understanding how these rights interact with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions and how these interactions would take place and be resolved in the ICANN framework), o understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws and regulations (some of which embody, in differing fashions and degrees, relevant international treaties and conventions) o how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's Corporate Social Responsibility and what efforts have been made or need to be made in that regard , * find out how other organizations similar to ICANN (e.g., I* organizations) have dealt with these issues, * determining which Bylaws amendment is the most appropriate outcome relating to this issue (and noting that various proposals have been floated in recent weeks), * understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other B ylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative ICANN documents, * determining what efforts may need to take place and what groups may need to be formed as a result of a Bylaw amendment (including without limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or Cross-Community Working Groups ) , * understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"), * what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.), * whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which are already in place, * what the result, effects and consequences (intentional and unintentional) of various impact analysis outcomes would be (either on present policy and implementation, on future policy and implementation and on other ICANN activities).
I think the last 4 points can be left to WS2. For the rest, we'll need to balance work in WS1 vs. WS2, but I think each requires some work in WS1 to have a framework of understanding the meaning and consequences of a Bylaws amendment, and to determine the best way forward in WS1. A number of these could (and probably should) generate (or be recast as) "Stress Tests."
This is very much a first draft (or 1.1, since I did revisit it once), so further contributions and revisions are welcomed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page <https://twitter.com/GregShatan>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Avri,
same tactics as usual.
Not unexpected.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Avri,
You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote:
Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ 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
- -- 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
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVxG/YAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjptqQH+gNtUJuauc65ODtFCxrk3J++ zrt5eubth47jB5rxMbjhnn/inx5vSHdRfFs7Mo9qIX1OV8q9kXEoyK46No9YsCEq Ob5h7yz2KbXUdTvcOU1JSWtGaKGe/GeJLLU2GvJv3eaBvjNYti/8dSw1niMxtjAZ OHu3XfVPj9x/jFIjBx+QEl8HvBjDRGkrtyLinWMFKHVo2MyCYhq6m6khopb1UegM A7CqnJrZHi0PQrmxjBJKO0ZvVpcYXwJ6G5PvdpLtyjqBOyoSYKkQHU/IrBWVA0ZD fPUJ0YBW2vA/+5zUniTRWQvjYVBa/JZhzDPj45g7MF40KW34hlf5zGUhZkuR9C8= =+Nfq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
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.)
I think this is a good conversation - and points out that we are now dealing in uncharted territory. It is fine for the UN agencies like ITU to have very general statements about support Human Rights and not getting into definitions - because this is done elsewhere in the UN, and because there is not a litigation process available to bring action against the agencies. But ICANN is VERY different. Not only is it open to litigation - its whole operational structure (recognizing registries and registrars, hiring staff, operating the IANA processes, agreements with RIRs and at least some ccTLDs, etc) is structured through contracts. And these contracts can be litigated in US (and potentially) other courts. ICANN is not like many of the companies which adopt Human Rights principles etc in their operations (many in my experience are mining companies, manufacturers making foreign investment etc) in two ways: 1. ICANN does not get to say that it will not go into certain relationships - especially in the operation of the IANA it must engage with all TLDs, especially ccTLDs, in the world. A mining company can see a potential investment opportunity may bring pressures on some human rights commitments and decide not to enter into this investment. ICANN does not have that luxury when it comes to ccTLDs - or for that matter which governments may be present at the GAC and attending ICANN meetings and participating in policy formulation. 2. ICANN not only has thousands of contracting parties, but is now moving to allow affected parties to bring actions in the Independent Review Panel. Indeed, in some jurisdictions, affected parties may now be able to bring action in the courts, even if they are not contracting parties In both the courts and the Independent Review Panel litigants are going to bring actions against ICANN for decisions which may be seen as counter to the bylaws. Now this is all very well. And ICANN should have this accountability. But I fear that if we leave very vague wording in the bylaws about ICANN's commitment to Human Rights, we will setting off years of litigation by human rights activists and entrepreneurial academics and lawyers to challenge all sorts of ICANN decisions. For instance, entering into an agreement with the government run ccTLD of a certain country; or an attempt to portray the Californian right to work employment practices as being counter to the UDHR's right to assemble and establish unions etc. Worst still, such actions may be sponsored by interested parties in the ICANN community to delay decisions with which they do not agree. I note that Avri's note included the following from the UN: " 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." So consider a specific case: a country forces its ccTLD to apply censorship rules to registrations and ensures that the ccTLD gives registration details for any political dissidents with domain names. Now ICANN has an agreement with that ccTLD. Does this leave ICANN vulnerable to legal action for failure to operate under its bylaws? Is ICANN under some obligation to act? I really think we need to be careful about wording we put in the bylaws amendments. It needs a lot of stress testing. Not only against all of ICANN's activities, but also against all the rights laid out in the UDHR and the ICCPR . Remember, many of these rights, especially the economic and social rights are rarely discussed by western human rights activists. But consider what the American Family Foundation and others who opposed the establishing the .xxx tld could have done in terms of legal action under**Article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which recognises the family as "the natural and fundamental group unit of society", and requires parties to accord it "the widest possible protection and assistance". Parties must take "special measures" to protect children from economic or social exploitation, including setting a minimum age of employment and barring children from dangerous and harmful occupations. I think it would certainly have taken us into a litigation about ICANN having a role in content. I am afraid today that I do not have specific wording that I would offer - but I am increasingly wondering whether "just put in high level language in the bylaws' approach may not be more disruptive and counter-productive in the long term. Paul.^ -- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com On 8/13/15 1:24 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
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.)
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
I can certainly empathise with Paul’s comments – and I think others can, too: we have seen comments about limiting to mandate etc. Remembering a comment that Nigel made early on, referring to the Ruggie Principles (The UN’s “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.p...), I wonder whether reference to following business obligations associated with these principles as appropriate to ICANN’s core mandate would provide us with a framework for WS1? If the US has signed up to Ruggie (which I assume it has), then this would actually be a statement (and acceptance) of the status quo Ruggie’s recommendations include responsibilities of the States, so many of the overarching issues would be for the country of incorporation – and their action to enforce. Just thinking about the .xxx example Paul cites (and there was a big question in Lisbon about ICANN going into content!), wouldn’t it have been possible for the American Family Foundation to have litigated on the grounds of exploitation of children and undermining the family? Just a thought! Martin From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Twomey Sent: 12 August 2015 17:57 To: wp4@icann.org Cc: Burr, Becky Subject: Re: [Wp4] Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected I think this is a good conversation - and points out that we are now dealing in uncharted territory. It is fine for the UN agencies like ITU to have very general statements about support Human Rights and not getting into definitions - because this is done elsewhere in the UN, and because there is not a litigation process available to bring action against the agencies. But ICANN is VERY different. Not only is it open to litigation - its whole operational structure (recognizing registries and registrars, hiring staff, operating the IANA processes, agreements with RIRs and at least some ccTLDs, etc) is structured through contracts. And these contracts can be litigated in US (and potentially) other courts. ICANN is not like many of the companies which adopt Human Rights principles etc in their operations (many in my experience are mining companies, manufacturers making foreign investment etc) in two ways: 1. ICANN does not get to say that it will not go into certain relationships - especially in the operation of the IANA it must engage with all TLDs, especially ccTLDs, in the world. A mining company can see a potential investment opportunity may bring pressures on some human rights commitments and decide not to enter into this investment. ICANN does not have that luxury when it comes to ccTLDs - or for that matter which governments may be present at the GAC and attending ICANN meetings and participating in policy formulation. 2. ICANN not only has thousands of contracting parties, but is now moving to allow affected parties to bring actions in the Independent Review Panel. Indeed, in some jurisdictions, affected parties may now be able to bring action in the courts, even if they are not contracting parties In both the courts and the Independent Review Panel litigants are going to bring actions against ICANN for decisions which may be seen as counter to the bylaws. Now this is all very well. And ICANN should have this accountability. But I fear that if we leave very vague wording in the bylaws about ICANN's commitment to Human Rights, we will setting off years of litigation by human rights activists and entrepreneurial academics and lawyers to challenge all sorts of ICANN decisions. For instance, entering into an agreement with the government run ccTLD of a certain country; or an attempt to portray the Californian right to work employment practices as being counter to the UDHR's right to assemble and establish unions etc. Worst still, such actions may be sponsored by interested parties in the ICANN community to delay decisions with which they do not agree. I note that Avri's note included the following from the UN: " 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." So consider a specific case: a country forces its ccTLD to apply censorship rules to registrations and ensures that the ccTLD gives registration details for any political dissidents with domain names. Now ICANN has an agreement with that ccTLD. Does this leave ICANN vulnerable to legal action for failure to operate under its bylaws? Is ICANN under some obligation to act? I really think we need to be careful about wording we put in the bylaws amendments. It needs a lot of stress testing. Not only against all of ICANN's activities, but also against all the rights laid out in the UDHR and the ICCPR . Remember, many of these rights, especially the economic and social rights are rarely discussed by western human rights activists. But consider what the American Family Foundation and others who opposed the establishing the .xxx tld could have done in terms of legal action under Article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which recognises the family as "the natural and fundamental group unit of society", and requires parties to accord it "the widest possible protection and assistance". Parties must take "special measures" to protect children from economic or social exploitation, including setting a minimum age of employment and barring children from dangerous and harmful occupations. I think it would certainly have taken us into a litigation about ICANN having a role in content. I am afraid today that I do not have specific wording that I would offer - but I am increasingly wondering whether "just put in high level language in the bylaws' approach may not be more disruptive and counter-productive in the long term. Paul. -- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com<http://www.argopacific.com> On 8/13/15 1:24 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: 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.) _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org<mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
Without going into the xxx politics too much (although I could not resist copying Becky ;) ), part of my point is by putting HR wording into the bylaws we will directing the attention of various parties to new ways to try to halt/affect ICANN decisions and operations. This may be a good thing - but we need to consider the implications very carefully. As for the Ruggie Principles, I quoted an excerpt below and pointed to a real issue on ccTLD agreements. I have to say that I am increasingly wondering whether at least the ccTLD links should be exempted or at least carefully prescribed. Paul On 8/13/15 3:28 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
I can certainly empathise with Paul’s comments – and I think others can, too: we have seen comments about limiting to mandate etc.
Remembering a comment that Nigel made early on, referring to the Ruggie Principles (The UN’s “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.p...), I wonder whether reference to following business obligations associated with these principles as appropriate to ICANN’s core mandate would provide us with a framework for WS1? If the US has signed up to Ruggie (which I assume it has), then this would actually be a statement (and acceptance) of the status quo
Ruggie’s recommendations include responsibilities of the States, so many of the overarching issues would be for the country of incorporation – and their action to enforce. Just thinking about the .xxx example Paul cites (and there was a big question in Lisbon about ICANN going into content!), wouldn’t it have been possible for the American Family Foundation to have litigated on the grounds of exploitation of children and undermining the family?
Just a thought!
Martin
*From:*wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Twomey *Sent:* 12 August 2015 17:57 *To:* wp4@icann.org *Cc:* Burr, Becky *Subject:* Re: [Wp4] Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected
I think this is a good conversation - and points out that we are now dealing in uncharted territory.
It is fine for the UN agencies like ITU to have very general statements about support Human Rights and not getting into definitions - because this is done elsewhere in the UN, and because there is not a litigation process available to bring action against the agencies.
But ICANN is VERY different. Not only is it open to litigation - its whole operational structure (recognizing registries and registrars, hiring staff, operating the IANA processes, agreements with RIRs and at least some ccTLDs, etc) is structured through contracts. And these contracts can be litigated in US (and potentially) other courts.
ICANN is not like many of the companies which adopt Human Rights principles etc in their operations (many in my experience are mining companies, manufacturers making foreign investment etc) in two ways: 1. ICANN does not get to say that it will not go into certain relationships - especially in the operation of the IANA it must engage with all TLDs, especially ccTLDs, in the world. A mining company can see a potential investment opportunity may bring pressures on some human rights commitments and decide not to enter into this investment. ICANN does not have that luxury when it comes to ccTLDs - or for that matter which governments may be present at the GAC and attending ICANN meetings and participating in policy formulation. 2. ICANN not only has thousands of contracting parties, but is now moving to allow affected parties to bring actions in the Independent Review Panel. Indeed, in some jurisdictions, affected parties may now be able to bring action in the courts, even if they are not contracting parties
In both the courts and the Independent Review Panel litigants are going to bring actions against ICANN for decisions which may be seen as counter to the bylaws.
Now this is all very well. And ICANN should have this accountability.
But I fear that if we leave very vague wording in the bylaws about ICANN's commitment to Human Rights, we will setting off years of litigation by human rights activists and entrepreneurial academics and lawyers to challenge all sorts of ICANN decisions. For instance, entering into an agreement with the government run ccTLD of a certain country; or an attempt to portray the Californian right to work employment practices as being counter to the UDHR's right to assemble and establish unions etc.
Worst still, such actions may be sponsored by interested parties in the ICANN community to delay decisions with which they do not agree.
I note that Avri's note included the following from the UN: "
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."
So consider a specific case: a country forces its ccTLD to apply censorship rules to registrations and ensures that the ccTLD gives registration details for any political dissidents with domain names. Now ICANN has an agreement with that ccTLD. Does this leave ICANN vulnerable to legal action for failure to operate under its bylaws? Is ICANN under some obligation to act?
I really think we need to be careful about wording we put in the bylaws amendments. It needs a lot of stress testing. Not only against all of ICANN's activities, but also against all the rights laid out in the UDHR and the ICCPR . Remember, many of these rights, especially the economic and social rights are rarely discussed by western human rights activists.
But consider what the American Family Foundation and others who opposed the establishing the .xxx tld could have done in terms of legal action under**Article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which recognises the family as "the natural and fundamental group unit of society", and requires parties to accord it "the widest possible protection and assistance". Parties must take "special measures" to protect children from economic or social exploitation, including setting a minimum age of employment and barring children from dangerous and harmful occupations. I think it would certainly have taken us into a litigation about ICANN having a role in content.
I am afraid today that I do not have specific wording that I would offer - but I am increasingly wondering whether "just put in high level language in the bylaws' approach may not be more disruptive and counter-productive in the long term.
Paul.^
-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com <http://www.argopacific.com>
On 8/13/15 1:24 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
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.)
_______________________________________________ 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 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com
On 12/08/15 19:03, Paul Twomey wrote:
into the bylaws we will directing the attention of various parties to new ways to try to halt/affect ICANN decisions and operations. This may be a good thing
I submit that it is.
but we need to consider the implications very carefully.
I think this is correct.
real issue on ccTLD agreements. I have to say that I am increasingly wondering whether at least the ccTLD links should be exempted or at least carefully prescribed.
I suggest it is the ccTLD area where (careful) attention to respect for fundamental rights IS needed. ICANN has no role in directing how a ccTLD manager sets their policy. That is a matter for subsidiarity and is clearly delineated in the ICANN bylaws setting up the ccNSO, so how this affects ICANN, is principally, how it affects the IANA role, and the policy making role. As a former CEO of ICANN, from a particular timeframe, you understandably have a certain Weltanschaung - and perhaps it is one which views ICANN as giving out the authority to run a ccTLD. I'm not sure that this is the correct view. But I am certain that whatever the source authority of ICANN's role, (i.e. a contract with the US government, tablets of stone from God etc), that ICANN surely needs embrace certain minimum standards in all its work (i.e gTLD and ccTLD) which, inter alia, must include - Protection of Property (including intellectual property) Rights - Protection of Private and Family Life - Protection of Free Expression - Right to fair hearing before independent and impartial tribunal And .AFRICA (and before that .XXX) is not the first time ICANN has been see to be lacking in the latter, of particular note.
Hi Nigel Thanks for this - and sure, I do have particular experience which informs my view. But I have never had the view that ICANN gives out the right to run ccTLDs. Being recognized in the IANA database, however, is essential to be a ccTLD. I think you are making my point. Some specific clarity on rights for ccTLDs and others under specific ICANN actions/functions would be useful. I note that you named at least 3 rights which may be the main ones relevant to ICANN's mission. I am afraid I did not follow your argument of how subsidiarity automatically limits Human Rights protection. The Ruggles language, which is the UN's recommendations on how companies should follow Human Rights explicitly says companies should act even if they have not contributed to the breach (see below). I suspect that to protect the principle of subsidiarity, the bylaws' statement on Human Rights should explicitly state that subsidiary places a limit on ICANN's human rights accountability for policies at the ccTLD level. 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." As as aside, the right to property is an interesting one - for the operation of the IANA it has been a standing position of the IETF community and IANA/ICANN from the beginning that a TLD is not property. A recent decision in the US partly dealt with this and concluded that ccTLDs cannot be garnisheed like property. http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150105808/STERN%20v.%20THE%20IS... Other aspects of running a ccTLD (eg customer databases) etc are of course property. We could go on... Paul PS the .xxx issue did get resolved before a independent tribunal. ;) On 8/13/15 4:23 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
On 12/08/15 19:03, Paul Twomey wrote:
into the bylaws we will directing the attention of various parties to new ways to try to halt/affect ICANN decisions and operations. This may be a good thing
I submit that it is.
but we need to consider the implications very carefully.
I think this is correct.
real issue on ccTLD agreements. I have to say that I am increasingly wondering whether at least the ccTLD links should be exempted or at least carefully prescribed.
I suggest it is the ccTLD area where (careful) attention to respect for fundamental rights IS needed.
ICANN has no role in directing how a ccTLD manager sets their policy.
That is a matter for subsidiarity and is clearly delineated in the ICANN bylaws setting up the ccNSO, so how this affects ICANN, is principally, how it affects the IANA role, and the policy making role.
As a former CEO of ICANN, from a particular timeframe, you understandably have a certain Weltanschaung - and perhaps it is one which views ICANN as giving out the authority to run a ccTLD. I'm not sure that this is the correct view.
But I am certain that whatever the source authority of ICANN's role, (i.e. a contract with the US government, tablets of stone from God etc), that ICANN surely needs embrace certain minimum standards in all its work (i.e gTLD and ccTLD) which, inter alia, must include
- Protection of Property (including intellectual property) Rights - Protection of Private and Family Life - Protection of Free Expression - Right to fair hearing before independent and impartial tribunal
And .AFRICA (and before that .XXX) is not the first time ICANN has been see to be lacking in the latter, of particular note.
_______________________________________________ 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
Reading through the Ruggie Principles, three things jump out at me: 1. We can't limit this to ICANN's policies and implementation; adherence to the Ruggie Principles clearly requires ICANN to make that commitment as a "business enterprise," which extends at least to ICANN as an employer, as a contracting party and as a provider of services). 2. The relationship between an ICANN commitment to Human Rights and the operations and output of the various ICANN structures (GNSO, SGs, Constituencies, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, RSSAC, SSAC, ALAC and RALOs) is unclear. To the extent these are Bylaws-created structures, it seems much more likely than not that the obligations created by the commitment would fall equally on each of the structures, and not just on "ICANN-the-corporation." 3. The foundational documents that define the proposed ICANN Human Rights commitment include at least these six: the UDHR, the two related International Covenants, the Ruggie Principles, the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the ICT Sector Guide. 4. Adherence to the Ruggie Principles requires a significant operational commitment (see Principles 15-24). 5. The Ruggie Principles don't fit ICANN as a policy and implementation body nearly as easily as they fit ICANN as a business enterprise. We can't wait to Workstream 2 to address these points. We don't have to write tomes (at least not in WS1), but we at least need to provide clarity on these and other defining aspects, and define and conduct a "stress test" analysis. (Putting bylaws adoption in WS1 and Stress Tests in WS2 seems to be a particularly untenable position, and counter to our basic working methods as a WG.) This doesn't need to delay us, but it does mean that we need to do a whole lot more before Dublin besides setting a time to meet. Greg P.S. A more detailed discussion on some of the above points follows. The above is my attempt to be more pithy. The UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (Ruggie Principles) are founded on the "International Bill of Human Rights," which consists of the UDHR plus "the main instruments through which it has been codified: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights," and "the principles concerning fundamental rights in the eight ILO core conventions as set out in the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work." According to the Ruggie Principles, "These are the benchmarks against which other social actors assess the human rights impacts of business enterprises." Niels ten Oever also included the "ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights" on our list. (Niels's list also included the Ruggie Principles, UDHR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but oddly not the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.) It seems clear to me that if the Ruggie Principles are going to be one of the definitive documents for defining ICANN's commitment to Human Rights, it needs to make that commitment as a business enterprise and not merely as a policy-making enterprise. The commitment thus extends to ICANN as an employer and contractor, and to all the services ICANN provides, not merely policy development and implementation. (It would be rather an odd statement for ICANN as a "business enterprise" to exempt its own operations.) Reading the Ruggie Principles, it strikes me that ICANN as a governance ecosystem and policy-making enterprise is a somewhat awkward fit, compared to ICANN as a "normal" business enterprise. It also raises the interesting question of how an ICANN commitment to Human Rights would affect the operations of bodies created directly or indirectly by ICANN, such as the GNSO and its Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, the ccNSO, the ASO, the GAC, the RSSAC and SSAC, and the ALAC and the various RALOs. The Ruggie Principles also require significant work on the part of a compliant business enterprise, including: (a) A policy commitment to meet their responsibility to respect human
rights; (b) A human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights; (c) Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute.
This is Principle 15; Principles 16-24 flesh out how these policies and processes would be implemented in a generic business enterprise (again, applying this to the ICANN structures and ecosystem raises a number of significant questions). On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com> wrote:
Hi Nigel
Thanks for this - and sure, I do have particular experience which informs my view. But I have never had the view that ICANN gives out the right to run ccTLDs. Being recognized in the IANA database, however, is essential to be a ccTLD.
I think you are making my point. Some specific clarity on rights for ccTLDs and others under specific ICANN actions/functions would be useful. I note that you named at least 3 rights which may be the main ones relevant to ICANN's mission.
I am afraid I did not follow your argument of how subsidiarity automatically limits Human Rights protection. The Ruggles language, which is the UN's recommendations on how companies should follow Human Rights explicitly says companies should act even if they have not contributed to the breach (see below). I suspect that to protect the principle of subsidiarity, the bylaws' statement on Human Rights should explicitly state that subsidiary places a limit on ICANN's human rights accountability for policies at the ccTLD level.
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."
As as aside, the right to property is an interesting one - for the operation of the IANA it has been a standing position of the IETF community and IANA/ICANN from the beginning that a TLD is not property. A recent decision in the US partly dealt with this and concluded that ccTLDs cannot be garnisheed like property. http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150105808/STERN%20v.%20THE%20IS...
Other aspects of running a ccTLD (eg customer databases) etc are of course property.
We could go on...
Paul
PS the .xxx issue did get resolved before a independent tribunal. ;)
On 8/13/15 4:23 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
On 12/08/15 19:03, Paul Twomey wrote:
into the bylaws we will directing the attention of various parties to new ways to try to halt/affect ICANN decisions and operations. This may be a good thing
I submit that it is.
but we need to consider the implications very carefully.
I think this is correct.
real issue on ccTLD agreements. I have to say that I am increasingly wondering whether at least the ccTLD links should be exempted or at least carefully prescribed.
I suggest it is the ccTLD area where (careful) attention to respect for fundamental rights IS needed.
ICANN has no role in directing how a ccTLD manager sets their policy.
That is a matter for subsidiarity and is clearly delineated in the ICANN bylaws setting up the ccNSO, so how this affects ICANN, is principally, how it affects the IANA role, and the policy making role.
As a former CEO of ICANN, from a particular timeframe, you understandably have a certain Weltanschaung - and perhaps it is one which views ICANN as giving out the authority to run a ccTLD. I'm not sure that this is the correct view.
But I am certain that whatever the source authority of ICANN's role, (i.e. a contract with the US government, tablets of stone from God etc), that ICANN surely needs embrace certain minimum standards in all its work (i.e gTLD and ccTLD) which, inter alia, must include
- Protection of Property (including intellectual property) Rights - Protection of Private and Family Life - Protection of Free Expression - Right to fair hearing before independent and impartial tribunal
And .AFRICA (and before that .XXX) is not the first time ICANN has been see to be lacking in the latter, of particular note.
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi, I think you mention that the Ruggies principles are indeed generic. WS2 would be when we figured out how they applied to ICANN. You also quote the most essential parts: (a) A policy commitment to meet their responsibility to respect human rights; (b) A human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights; (c) Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute. Nothing it these 3 should be terribly difficult to commit to. But in the WS1 we are only looking to half of the first commitment - 'to respect human rights' and in fact limiting it to our mission and operations. How we do that is the longer task. While it is true that I initially recommended we commit to the Ruggie Principles in the Bylaws, I realized that this was too heavy a lift for ICANN at this point and am thus recommending we only take the first step - a commitment to respect Human Rights in maintaining the openness of the Internet, the commitment we have yet to make in replacing NTIA as oversight, and art of our accountability requirements fro NTIA. Much of the discussion you have initiated talks about new commitments you indicate we might have to take on, and expansive requirement. I am only talking about meeting the current commitment that is ours by virtue of US Gov't oversight. I would very much like for us to understand how Ruggie applies to the special condition of ICANN as a NGO that acts like a business, but that is the longer task, one I still think is inappropriate for WS1. I know you insist on taking us down this road, but I do believe you are confusing a very simple issue. avri On 13-Aug-15 05:13, Greg Shatan wrote:
Reading through the Ruggie Principles, three things jump out at me:
1. We can't limit this to ICANN's policies and implementation; adherence to the Ruggie Principles clearly requires ICANN to make that commitment as a "business enterprise," which extends at least to ICANN as an employer, as a contracting party and as a provider of services).
2. The relationship between an ICANN commitment to Human Rights and the operations and output of the various ICANN structures (GNSO, SGs, Constituencies, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, RSSAC, SSAC, ALAC and RALOs) is unclear. To the extent these are Bylaws-created structures, it seems much more likely than not that the obligations created by the commitment would fall equally on each of the structures, and not just on "ICANN-the-corporation."
3. The foundational documents that define the proposed ICANN Human Rights commitment include at least these six: the UDHR, the two related International Covenants, the Ruggie Principles, the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the ICT Sector Guide.
4. Adherence to the Ruggie Principles requires a significant operational commitment (see Principles 15-24).
5. The Ruggie Principles don't fit ICANN as a policy and implementation body nearly as easily as they fit ICANN as a business enterprise.
We can't wait to Workstream 2 to address these points. We don't have to write tomes (at least not in WS1), but we at least need to provide clarity on these and other defining aspects, and define and conduct a "stress test" analysis. (Putting bylaws adoption in WS1 and Stress Tests in WS2 seems to be a particularly untenable position, and counter to our basic working methods as a WG.)
This doesn't need to delay us, but it does mean that we need to do a whole lot more before Dublin besides setting a time to meet.
Greg
P.S. A more detailed discussion on some of the above points follows. The above is my attempt to be more pithy.
The UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (Ruggie Principles) are founded on the "International Bill of Human Rights," which consists of the UDHR plus "the main instruments through which it has been codified: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights," and "the principles concerning fundamental rights in the eight ILO core conventions as set out in the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work." According to the Ruggie Principles, "These are the benchmarks against which other social actors assess the human rights impacts of business enterprises."
Niels ten Oever also included the "ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights" on our list. (Niels's list also included the Ruggie Principles, UDHR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but oddly not the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.)
It seems clear to me that if the Ruggie Principles are going to be one of the definitive documents for defining ICANN's commitment to Human Rights, it needs to make that commitment as a business enterprise and not merely as a policy-making enterprise. The commitment thus extends to ICANN as an employer and contractor, and to all the services ICANN provides, not merely policy development and implementation. (It would be rather an odd statement for ICANN as a "business enterprise" to exempt its own operations.)
Reading the Ruggie Principles, it strikes me that ICANN as a governance ecosystem and policy-making enterprise is a somewhat awkward fit, compared to ICANN as a "normal" business enterprise.
It also raises the interesting question of how an ICANN commitment to Human Rights would affect the operations of bodies created directly or indirectly by ICANN, such as the GNSO and its Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, the ccNSO, the ASO, the GAC, the RSSAC and SSAC, and the ALAC and the various RALOs.
The Ruggie Principles also require significant work on the part of a compliant business enterprise, including:
(a) A policy commitment to meet their responsibility to respect human rights; (b) A human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights; (c) Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute.
This is Principle 15; Principles 16-24 flesh out how these policies and processes would be implemented in a generic business enterprise (again, applying this to the ICANN structures and ecosystem raises a number of significant questions).
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com <mailto:paul.twomey@argopacific.com>> wrote:
Hi Nigel
Thanks for this - and sure, I do have particular experience which informs my view. But I have never had the view that ICANN gives out the right to run ccTLDs. Being recognized in the IANA database, however, is essential to be a ccTLD.
I think you are making my point. Some specific clarity on rights for ccTLDs and others under specific ICANN actions/functions would be useful. I note that you named at least 3 rights which may be the main ones relevant to ICANN's mission.
I am afraid I did not follow your argument of how subsidiarity automatically limits Human Rights protection. The Ruggles language, which is the UN's recommendations on how companies should follow Human Rights explicitly says companies should act even if they have not contributed to the breach (see below). I suspect that to protect the principle of subsidiarity, the bylaws' statement on Human Rights should explicitly state that subsidiary places a limit on ICANN's human rights accountability for policies at the ccTLD level.
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."
As as aside, the right to property is an interesting one - for the operation of the IANA it has been a standing position of the IETF community and IANA/ICANN from the beginning that a TLD is not property. A recent decision in the US partly dealt with this and concluded that ccTLDs cannot be garnisheed like property. http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150105808/STERN%20v.%20THE%20IS...
Other aspects of running a ccTLD (eg customer databases) etc are of course property.
We could go on...
Paul
PS the .xxx issue did get resolved before a independent tribunal. ;)
On 8/13/15 4:23 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
On 12/08/15 19:03, Paul Twomey wrote:
into the bylaws we will directing the attention of various parties to new ways to try to halt/affect ICANN decisions and operations. This may be a good thing
I submit that it is.
> but we need to consider the implications very carefully.
I think this is correct.
real issue on ccTLD agreements. I have to say that I am increasingly wondering whether at least the ccTLD links should be exempted or at least carefully prescribed.
I suggest it is the ccTLD area where (careful) attention to respect for fundamental rights IS needed.
ICANN has no role in directing how a ccTLD manager sets their policy.
That is a matter for subsidiarity and is clearly delineated in the ICANN bylaws setting up the ccNSO, so how this affects ICANN, is principally, how it affects the IANA role, and the policy making role.
As a former CEO of ICANN, from a particular timeframe, you understandably have a certain Weltanschaung - and perhaps it is one which views ICANN as giving out the authority to run a ccTLD. I'm not sure that this is the correct view.
But I am certain that whatever the source authority of ICANN's role, (i.e. a contract with the US government, tablets of stone from God etc), that ICANN surely needs embrace certain minimum standards in all its work (i.e gTLD and ccTLD) which, inter alia, must include
- Protection of Property (including intellectual property) Rights - Protection of Private and Family Life - Protection of Free Expression - Right to fair hearing before independent and impartial tribunal
And .AFRICA (and before that .XXX) is not the first time ICANN has been see to be lacking in the latter, of particular note.
_______________________________________________ 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
Avri. I am wondering about the approach. Looking at processes before establishing the fundamentals (of what we are talking about) is one of the reasons that got us (CCWG Accountability) into this mess. I am currently in transit and too preoccopied to think about this deeply, bu will, after my return, next week. greetings, el On 2015-08-13 07:58 , Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I think you mention that the Ruggies principles are indeed generic. WS2 would be when we figured out how they applied to ICANN.
You also quote the most essential parts:
(a) A policy commitment to meet their responsibility to respect human rights; (b) A human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights; (c) Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute.
Nothing it these 3 should be terribly difficult to commit to. But in the WS1 we are only looking to half of the first commitment - 'to respect human rights' and in fact limiting it to our mission and operations. How we do that is the longer task.
While it is true that I initially recommended we commit to the Ruggie Principles in the Bylaws, I realized that this was too heavy a lift for ICANN at this point and am thus recommending we only take the first step - a commitment to respect Human Rights in maintaining the openness of the Internet, the commitment we have yet to make in replacing NTIA as oversight, and art of our accountability requirements fro NTIA.
Much of the discussion you have initiated talks about new commitments you indicate we might have to take on, and expansive requirement. I am only talking about meeting the current commitment that is ours by virtue of US Gov't oversight.
I would very much like for us to understand how Ruggie applies to the special condition of ICANN as a NGO that acts like a business, but that is the longer task, one I still think is inappropriate for WS1. I know you insist on taking us down this road, but I do believe you are confusing a very simple issue.
avri
[...]
At ICANN Meeting in New Delhi, Paul and I had a meeting arranged by his PA (of Wheetbix fame) in his suite. I asked him what gave ICANN the right to to with ccTLD Managers as they pleased. His answer was: "Because we control the root". Amazing foresight that man had, summarizing, ICG, CWG, CCWG and the multistakeholder approach of the transition process in one sentence, years before it was contemplated. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 12, 2015, at 18:57, Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com> wrote:
I think this is a good conversation - and points out that we are now dealing in uncharted territory.
It is fine for the UN agencies like ITU to have very general statements about support Human Rights and not getting into definitions - because this is done elsewhere in the UN, and because there is not a litigation process available to bring action against the agencies.
But ICANN is VERY different. Not only is it open to litigation - its whole operational structure (recognizing registries and registrars, hiring staff, operating the IANA processes, agreements with RIRs and at least some ccTLDs, etc) is structured through contracts. And these contracts can be litigated in US (and potentially) other courts.
ICANN is not like many of the companies which adopt Human Rights principles etc in their operations (many in my experience are mining companies, manufacturers making foreign investment etc) in two ways: 1. ICANN does not get to say that it will not go into certain relationships - especially in the operation of the IANA it must engage with all TLDs, especially ccTLDs, in the world. A mining company can see a potential investment opportunity may bring pressures on some human rights commitments and decide not to enter into this investment. ICANN does not have that luxury when it comes to ccTLDs - or for that matter which governments may be present at the GAC and attending ICANN meetings and participating in policy formulation. 2. ICANN not only has thousands of contracting parties, but is now moving to allow affected parties to bring actions in the Independent Review Panel. Indeed, in some jurisdictions, affected parties may now be able to bring action in the courts, even if they are not contracting parties
In both the courts and the Independent Review Panel litigants are going to bring actions against ICANN for decisions which may be seen as counter to the bylaws.
Now this is all very well. And ICANN should have this accountability.
But I fear that if we leave very vague wording in the bylaws about ICANN's commitment to Human Rights, we will setting off years of litigation by human rights activists and entrepreneurial academics and lawyers to challenge all sorts of ICANN decisions. For instance, entering into an agreement with the government run ccTLD of a certain country; or an attempt to portray the Californian right to work employment practices as being counter to the UDHR's right to assemble and establish unions etc.
Worst still, such actions may be sponsored by interested parties in the ICANN community to delay decisions with which they do not agree.
I note that Avri's note included the following from the UN: " 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."
So consider a specific case: a country forces its ccTLD to apply censorship rules to registrations and ensures that the ccTLD gives registration details for any political dissidents with domain names. Now ICANN has an agreement with that ccTLD. Does this leave ICANN vulnerable to legal action for failure to operate under its bylaws? Is ICANN under some obligation to act?
I really think we need to be careful about wording we put in the bylaws amendments. It needs a lot of stress testing. Not only against all of ICANN's activities, but also against all the rights laid out in the UDHR and the ICCPR . Remember, many of these rights, especially the economic and social rights are rarely discussed by western human rights activists.
But consider what the American Family Foundation and others who opposed the establishing the .xxx tld could have done in terms of legal action under Article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which recognises the family as "the natural and fundamental group unit of society", and requires parties to accord it "the widest possible protection and assistance". Parties must take "special measures" to protect children from economic or social exploitation, including setting a minimum age of employment and barring children from dangerous and harmful occupations. I think it would certainly have taken us into a litigation about ICANN having a role in content.
I am afraid today that I do not have specific wording that I would offer - but I am increasingly wondering whether "just put in high level language in the bylaws' approach may not be more disruptive and counter-productive in the long term.
Paul.
-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific
US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501
www.argopacific.com
On 8/13/15 1:24 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: 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.)
_______________________________________________ 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi Greg and others, Thanks for your welcoming words, happy to be here. I think a light touch, high level statement mentioning the UDHR, ICCPR and ICESR would make most sense. I mentioned the UDHR and ICCPR because I mostly refer to first generation human rights, but I agree that including second generation human rights is relevant. Third generation human rights are often seen as aspirational soft-law, so I would be hesitant to include them. Are these criteria / categories you can work with? The body of human rights law has been pretty narrowly defined. I also don't think that would actually be an expansion of ICANNs commitment because in article 4 of ICANNs articles of incorporation already states: [quote[ 4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organizations. [/quote] This specification in the bylaws therefore doesn't entail an expansion of commitments, therefore I don't think we would need to design a stress test for this. I think we can use the UN Guiding Principles and the Global Compact for designing the actual implementation in WS2, but I would say we shouldn't discuss the implementation in this part of the process. Happy to discuss. Best, Niels On 08/12/2015 05:02 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Niels,
First, welcome to the CCWG on Enhancing ICANN's Accountability. I suppose it's never to late to join in. I look forward to your contributions on a wide variety of issues. My responses to your email are inline below.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org <mailto:lists@digitaldissidents.org>> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thanks for this. I think many of these issues can be relatively simple resolved.
GS: I tend to agree; of course, our definitions of simple may be somewhat different....
Underlying documents to human rights:
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
GS: This is one possible list, and it has the virtue of being short and manageable.
We've discussed a number of other underlying documents on this and other lists. I see that you mention two of them below: the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights , and the ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights . I understand that these are less foundational and more implementation-oriented than the first two documents you mention, but from the point of considering what we are doing, these are (or rather, could be, if we adopt them) underlying documents. The Cisco report you cite also mentions "eight Core Labor Conventions developed by the International Labor Organization (ILO), and the United Nations Global Compact."
The AGB mentions the following as examples of "international law" (though not specifically as examples of human rights laws):
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
- The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
- The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
- Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women
- The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
- The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
- The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families
- Slavery Convention
- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
- Convention on the Rights of the Child
I honestly don't know which if any of these have relevance to fundamental human rights and ICANN's mission. I suppose we could wait until Workstream 2 to determine which if any of these should be explicitly seen as helping to define the Human Rights to which ICANN is committing.
These have been agreed upon by practically all states and are inherent part of the body of international law. I don't think we would need to re-discuss their validity, universality or applicability here.
I also don't think that a detailed discussion of the actual implementation of this work needs to be discussed here. Detailed implementation of policy does not belong in the bylaws.
GS: I agree with your second sentence but not your first. I don't think anyone has suggested that detailed implementation of policy belongs /in/ the Bylaws. But the Bylaws are the tip of the iceberg. We do need reasonably detailed discussion to come to a common understanding of what ICANN is committing to and what the results and consequences of that commitment are. ICANN does not adopt or amend bylaws without relatively detailed rationales and underlying work. This should and must be the same for this, especially since it is being adopted as a "Core Value."
If you want to read more about it, I think the reports that Article19 produced for the CCWP on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights could be a good starter. [0] As well as of course the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights [1] and the ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights [2].
This is not something that we are reinventing here, but a practice that many companies have already adopted, look for instance at Cisco [3][4].
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.)
Greg
Best,
Niels
[0] tinyurl.com/cchumanrights <http://tinyurl.com/cchumanrights> [1] http://business-humanrights.org/en/un-guiding-principles [2] http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/eu-sector-guidance/EC-Guides/ICT/EC-Guide_ICT. pd
f
<http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/eu-sector-guidance/EC-Guides/ICT/EC-Guide_ICT .pdf>
[3]
http://csr.cisco.com/cdnorigin/media/documents/Human-Rights_1299738057 81
330000.pdf
<http://csr.cisco.com/cdnorigin/media/documents/Human-Rights_129973805 781330000.pdf>
[4] http://www.cisco.com/assets/csr/pdf/CSR_Report_2014.pdf
On 08/06/2015 11:35 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
In terms of next steps, here is a list I put in an email about a week ago, slightly adapted for the current context.
* study/analysis/discussion of the underlying documents (treaties, conventions, guidelines, standards, etc.) (which in turn requires determining which documents are relevant -- there have been several helpful suggestions but that can't automatically be taken as exhaustive or on-target), o understanding the rights put forth in these documents ( and any other rights put forth as human rights in the WG) , o understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact "human rights", o understanding how these rights may interact and be balanced amongst themselves,
* understanding how these rights relate to and interact with ICANN's mission and activities, o understanding how these rights interact with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions and how these interactions would take place and be resolved in the ICANN framework), o understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws and regulations (some of which embody, in differing fashions and degrees, relevant international treaties and conventions) o how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's Corporate Social Responsibility and what efforts have been made or need to be made in that regard , * find out how other organizations similar to ICANN (e.g., I* organizations) have dealt with these issues, * determining which Bylaws amendment is the most appropriate outcome relating to this issue (and noting that various proposals have been floated in recent weeks), * understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other B ylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative ICANN documents, * determining what efforts may need to take place and what groups may need to be formed as a result of a Bylaw amendment (including without limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or Cross-Community Working Groups ) , * understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"), * what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.), * whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which are already in place, * what the result, effects and consequences (intentional and unintentional) of various impact analysis outcomes would be (either on present policy and implementation, on future policy and implementation and on other ICANN activities).
I think the last 4 points can be left to WS2. For the rest, we'll need to balance work in WS1 vs. WS2, but I think each requires some work in WS1 to have a framework of understanding the meaning and consequences of a Bylaws amendment, and to determine the best way forward in WS1. A number of these could (and probably should) generate (or be recast as) "Stress Tests."
This is very much a first draft (or 1.1, since I did revisit it once), so further contributions and revisions are welcomed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page <https://twitter.com/GregShatan>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na> <mailto:el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>>> wrote:
Avri,
same tactics as usual.
Not unexpected.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Avri,
You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>> wrote:
Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote:
Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto: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 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVzJbXAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpVOAH/R30JI46b0g4I/cGA5/E0lC4 MzVHzhE7t5AW33Tlx+v5bCDgaPHifwmD9fE5ubBbdKRZS6J7MIeBuEtNHzVc6m+b UX4yPiiAS7K8zAXTu9UX2SuqbASZdIso2ESfpEEeMO5KQQVpT1tRnl7a1dCKl4yB yddTR7+z8YXYfJbKso8Zvv9k/ET99/GC2gjz4Hn1EQujytl/dK4kHe40cmU5k7Ca 88JzvQ05LWWIJPJPMDBdArrRGog1/8/ceYUMCS3lQwxwv66g3oLMSHOHy4XzX7Ri BovM99Qllf5eqFPVHyaT2XPHqxJCbQqosb70SbSZaZ2GAanqzB3nLl9yNNRirk4= =NX02 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 But as said earlier, I still think we should go with a high level reference to human rights, which seems to be the approach most people agree to if I am not mistaken. If one really would like to tie it further down, I suggest we include a reference to UDHR, ICCPR and ICESR. Best, Niels - -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 08/13/2015 03:08 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Hi Greg and others,
Thanks for your welcoming words, happy to be here. I think a light touch, high level statement mentioning the UDHR, ICCPR and ICESR would make most sense.
I mentioned the UDHR and ICCPR because I mostly refer to first generation human rights, but I agree that including second generation human rights is relevant.
Third generation human rights are often seen as aspirational soft-law, so I would be hesitant to include them.
Are these criteria / categories you can work with? The body of human rights law has been pretty narrowly defined.
I also don't think that would actually be an expansion of ICANNs commitment because in article 4 of ICANNs articles of incorporation already states:
[quote[ 4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organizations. [/quote]
This specification in the bylaws therefore doesn't entail an expansion of commitments, therefore I don't think we would need to design a stress test for this.
I think we can use the UN Guiding Principles and the Global Compact for designing the actual implementation in WS2, but I would say we shouldn't discuss the implementation in this part of the process.
Happy to discuss.
Best,
Niels
On 08/12/2015 05:02 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Niels,
First, welcome to the CCWG on Enhancing ICANN's Accountability. I suppose it's never to late to join in. I look forward to your contributions on a wide variety of issues. My responses to your email are inline below.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org <mailto:lists@digitaldissidents.org>> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thanks for this. I think many of these issues can be relatively simple resolved.
GS: I tend to agree; of course, our definitions of simple may be somewhat different....
Underlying documents to human rights:
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
GS: This is one possible list, and it has the virtue of being short and manageable.
We've discussed a number of other underlying documents on this and other lists. I see that you mention two of them below: the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights , and the ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights . I understand that these are less foundational and more implementation-oriented than the first two documents you mention, but from the point of considering what we are doing, these are (or rather, could be, if we adopt them) underlying documents. The Cisco report you cite also mentions "eight Core Labor Conventions developed by the International Labor Organization (ILO), and the United Nations Global Compact."
The AGB mentions the following as examples of "international law" (though not specifically as examples of human rights laws):
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
- The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
- The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
- Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women
- The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
- The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
- The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families
- Slavery Convention
- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
- Convention on the Rights of the Child
I honestly don't know which if any of these have relevance to fundamental human rights and ICANN's mission. I suppose we could wait until Workstream 2 to determine which if any of these should be explicitly seen as helping to define the Human Rights to which ICANN is committing.
These have been agreed upon by practically all states and are inherent part of the body of international law. I don't think we would need to re-discuss their validity, universality or applicability here.
I also don't think that a detailed discussion of the actual implementation of this work needs to be discussed here. Detailed implementation of policy does not belong in the bylaws.
GS: I agree with your second sentence but not your first. I don't think anyone has suggested that detailed implementation of policy belongs /in/ the Bylaws. But the Bylaws are the tip of the iceberg. We do need reasonably detailed discussion to come to a common understanding of what ICANN is committing to and what the results and consequences of that commitment are. ICANN does not adopt or amend bylaws without relatively detailed rationales and underlying work. This should and must be the same for this, especially since it is being adopted as a "Core Value."
If you want to read more about it, I think the reports that Article19 produced for the CCWP on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights could be a good starter. [0] As well as of course the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights [1] and the ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights [2].
This is not something that we are reinventing here, but a practice that many companies have already adopted, look for instance at Cisco [3][4].
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.)
Greg
Best,
Niels
[0] tinyurl.com/cchumanrights <http://tinyurl.com/cchumanrights> [1] http://business-humanrights.org/en/un-guiding-principles [2]
http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/eu-sector-guidance/EC-Guides/ICT/EC-Guide_ICT .
pd
f
<http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/eu-sector-guidance/EC-Guides/ICT/EC-Guide_IC T
.pdf>
[3]
http://csr.cisco.com/cdnorigin/media/documents/Human-Rights_129973805 7
81
330000.pdf
<http://csr.cisco.com/cdnorigin/media/documents/Human-Rights_12997380 5
781330000.pdf>
[4] http://www.cisco.com/assets/csr/pdf/CSR_Report_2014.pdf
On 08/06/2015 11:35 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
In terms of next steps, here is a list I put in an email about a week ago, slightly adapted for the current context.
* study/analysis/discussion of the underlying documents (treaties, conventions, guidelines, standards, etc.) (which in turn requires determining which documents are relevant -- there have been several helpful suggestions but that can't automatically be taken as exhaustive or on-target), o understanding the rights put forth in these documents ( and any other rights put forth as human rights in the WG) , o understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact "human rights", o understanding how these rights may interact and be balanced amongst themselves,
* understanding how these rights relate to and interact with ICANN's mission and activities, o understanding how these rights interact with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions and how these interactions would take place and be resolved in the ICANN framework), o understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws and regulations (some of which embody, in differing fashions and degrees, relevant international treaties and conventions) o how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's Corporate Social Responsibility and what efforts have been made or need to be made in that regard , * find out how other organizations similar to ICANN (e.g., I* organizations) have dealt with these issues, * determining which Bylaws amendment is the most appropriate outcome relating to this issue (and noting that various proposals have been floated in recent weeks), * understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other B ylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative ICANN documents, * determining what efforts may need to take place and what groups may need to be formed as a result of a Bylaw amendment (including without limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or Cross-Community Working Groups ) , * understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"), * what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.), * whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which are already in place, * what the result, effects and consequences (intentional and unintentional) of various impact analysis outcomes would be (either on present policy and implementation, on future policy and implementation and on other ICANN activities).
I think the last 4 points can be left to WS2. For the rest, we'll need to balance work in WS1 vs. WS2, but I think each requires some work in WS1 to have a framework of understanding the meaning and consequences of a Bylaws amendment, and to determine the best way forward in WS1. A number of these could (and probably should) generate (or be recast as) "Stress Tests."
This is very much a first draft (or 1.1, since I did revisit it once), so further contributions and revisions are welcomed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page <https://twitter.com/GregShatan>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na> <mailto:el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>>> wrote:
Avri,
same tactics as usual.
Not unexpected.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Avri,
You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>> wrote:
Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote:
Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ 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
- -- 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 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVzLJtAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpVboH/Rojt/1cEq7cU+CRbP0ugDAx +Q6Dzb0ARg+z3lbXgVZ/VqIvnAHCRk4t/9EYakMArMtHiw6/8vnKCt9zeRrdxNEH yINtfymrtpRtHyb+7XBO7iDlscl9LLsvwuCpm5BfJqIKYaRkvSIAy/VzRatvAKJ+ xDTs2dZN/4iMR1LtsmWAXqz0pGYsX5r7GVhAvKWREKFM8sZXLZS/aokJJQrPPnqy zzqCDrjnhCa2TVpu2ZGS6Xeumn1qbiHQ9kRqINHdSuYrvWtteQZeoF49rntovL8f sjJ26q9yYcz9kisU5u4AXj2oWeR45QgGW0XMA6FYTIDs7GMSrcDyYY4V/4UabVA= =K3bc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Please find attached a first cut at a briefing paper to inform discussion. A draft of the High Level Objective will follow shortly. Nigel
Draft of High Level Objective ============================= 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. On 08/24/2015 07:12 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Please find attached a first cut at a briefing paper to inform discussion.
A draft of the High Level Objective will follow shortly.
Nigel
Hi Nigel Thanks for this and for the other document. It might be useful to put these in some form of editable doc (google doc for example) that would encourage comments/text suggestions. Matthew On 8/24/2015 7:50 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Draft of High Level Objective =============================
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.
On 08/24/2015 07:12 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Please find attached a first cut at a briefing paper to inform discussion.
A draft of the High Level Objective will follow shortly.
Nigel
Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
Dear Grec Thank you for your scrutiny but we do not need to reopen what has been discussed for years These two internally recognised and universally accepted agreements are more than sufficient to be cross referenced in a high level approach Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Aug 2015, at 23:35, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
In terms of next steps, here is a list I put in an email about a week ago, slightly adapted for the current context. study/analysis/discussion of the underlying documents (treaties, conventions, guidelines, standards, etc.) (which in turn requires determining which documents are relevant -- there have been several helpful suggestions but that can't automatically be taken as exhaustive or on-target), understanding the rights put forth in these documents (and any other rights put forth as human rights in the WG), understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact "human rights", understanding how these rights may interact and be balanced amongst themselves, understanding how these rights relate to and interact with ICANN's mission and activities, understanding how these rights interact with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions and how these interactions would take place and be resolved in the ICANN framework), understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws and regulations (some of which embody, in differing fashions and degrees, relevant international treaties and conventions) how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's Corporate Social Responsibility and what efforts have been made or need to be made in that regard, find out how other organizations similar to ICANN (e.g., I* organizations) have dealt with these issues, determining which Bylaws amendment is the most appropriate outcome relating to this issue (and noting that various proposals have been floated in recent weeks), understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other Bylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative ICANN documents, determining what efforts may need to take place and what groups may need to be formed as a result of a Bylaw amendment (including without limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or Cross-Community Working Groups), understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"), what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.), whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which are already in place, what the result, effects and consequences (intentional and unintentional) of various impact analysis outcomes would be (either on present policy and implementation, on future policy and implementation and on other ICANN activities). I think the last 4 points can be left to WS2. For the rest, we'll need to balance work in WS1 vs. WS2, but I think each requires some work in WS1 to have a framework of understanding the meaning and consequences of a Bylaws amendment, and to determine the best way forward in WS1. A number of these could (and probably should) generate (or be recast as) "Stress Tests."
This is very much a first draft (or 1.1, since I did revisit it once), so further contributions and revisions are welcomed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote: Avri,
same tactics as usual.
Not unexpected.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Greg wrote
determining what efforts may need to take place
Using Greg's list as inspiration, I offer the following. Comments? ICANN and Human Rights - Outline of Background Briefing Document ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Overview - what are fundamental rights Discussion of the general landscape 2. Absolute vs. Qualified Rights Explanation of the two types of fundamental rights 3. Two sides of the coin - obligations Rights imply corresponding obligations. Who have human rights obligations and why. 4. Fundamental rights obligations and international organisations Overview of how international organisations relate to human and fundamental rights 5. Fundamental rights obligations and the private sector Overview of how private sector organisations relate to human and fundamental rights 6. ICANN - where we are now. As an international, private sector organisation, what human rights obligations does ICANN currently habe 7. ICANN - where do we want to be at the point of transition High-level objective - new bylaw. WS1 workplan. 8. ICANN - where do we want to be on the anniversary of transition (High level WS2 plan) 9. ICANN - five year plan - where do we want to be 5 years from today (High leve WS2 plan).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi Nigel, I think points 1-6 are discussed here: http://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/38003/ICANN_report_A5-f or-web.pdf and here: https://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/37845/ICANN-PAPER-WEB. pdf Happy to hear what you think. Best, Niels On 08/07/2015 11:43 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Greg wrote
determining what efforts may need to take place
Using Greg's list as inspiration, I offer the following.
Comments?
ICANN and Human Rights - Outline of Background Briefing Document -----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Overview - what are fundamental rights
Discussion of the general landscape
2. Absolute vs. Qualified Rights
Explanation of the two types of fundamental rights
3. Two sides of the coin - obligations
Rights imply corresponding obligations. Who have human rights obligations and why.
4. Fundamental rights obligations and international organisations
Overview of how international organisations relate to human and fundamental rights
5. Fundamental rights obligations and the private sector
Overview of how private sector organisations relate to human and fundamental rights
6. ICANN - where we are now.
As an international, private sector organisation, what human rights obligations does ICANN currently habe
7. ICANN - where do we want to be at the point of transition
High-level objective - new bylaw. WS1 workplan.
8. ICANN - where do we want to be on the anniversary of transition (High level WS2 plan)
9. ICANN - five year plan - where do we want to be 5 years from today (High leve WS2 plan).
_______________________________________________ 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 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVxIZWAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp6IcH/0LOF8QDA9e0Q5Odm9Km4UOz Gs7gHtsUik+hBPmtRGJXt2IDjKNb3beKMkphszB9ajhaQe+GSf8JyWhdmpZUjCIP khmcEotnIsxVKmIPzNRZPhY6EZQbfIKZXEjHgyrG9fAOIplCa1il7ysYt5khSLYb Aa0QU62Ua4LUSdepFnezu515AvDnPMvpBv++x1hw3ddtToORfvi0wA1QSXo91Js+ eaWLduojsF/XtIm9EE/7VwuQNjJRGU3HhMdG+pFlkIvTkO/SALPRd2bvF04mTeHX vxgqrxriiC7HOEVOws0J5Ec001YAGOtWrG0yy0tWtMk99E2ltRBmLKrVbPyemaE= =P+Jo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi Greg, Thank you for all the thought you are putting into this effort – consistent with the generous amount of time/commitment you have put into our CCWG work generally. I have two comments to this suggested approach. First, I come down on the side of others on the list who have said that this level of detail in WS1 may be over-complicating things. As I see it, our job in WS1 is to try to come up with the statement that eluded us prior to issuing Draft Proposal Two on Aug. 3 – a statement about ICANN’s commitment toward the respect of fundamental human rights within its mission. We were very close. The greater detail should be left for WS2. In fact, it might be possible to address this issue by adding a new sentence to follow either of the examples we posted at paragraph 151 of the proposal, perhaps something like this: “The CCWG will develop a more complete statement of this commitment in Work Stream Two.” Secondly (and IMO with respect to WS2), where you say below: “understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws …” I would suggest “understanding how these rights interact with ICANN’s existing obligations under applicable laws …”. David McAuley From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 5:35 PM To: wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected In terms of next steps, here is a list I put in an email about a week ago, slightly adapted for the current context. * study/analysis/discussion of the underlying documents (treaties, conventions, guidelines, standards, etc.) (which in turn requires determining which documents are relevant -- there have been several helpful suggestions but that can't automatically be taken as exhaustive or on-target), * understanding the rights put forth in these documents ( and any other rights put forth as human rights in the WG) , * understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact "human rights", * understanding how these rights may interact and be balanced amongst themselves, * understanding how these rights relate to and interact with ICANN's mission and activities, * understanding how these rights interact with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions and how these interactions would take place and be resolved in the ICANN framework), * understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws and regulations (some of which embody, in differing fashions and degrees, relevant international treaties and conventions) * how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's Corporate Social Responsibility and what efforts have been made or need to be made in that regard , * find out how other organizations similar to ICANN (e.g., I* organizations) have dealt with these issues, * determining which Bylaws amendment is the most appropriate outcome relating to this issue (and noting that various proposals have been floated in recent weeks), * understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other B ylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative ICANN documents, * determining what efforts may need to take place and what groups may need to be formed as a result of a Bylaw amendment (including without limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or Cross-Community Working Groups ) , * understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"), * what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.), * whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which are already in place, * what the result, effects and consequences (intentional and unintentional) of various impact analysis outcomes would be (either on present policy and implementation, on future policy and implementation and on other ICANN activities). I think the last 4 points can be left to WS2. For the rest, we'll need to balance work in WS1 vs. WS2, but I think each requires some work in WS1 to have a framework of understanding the meaning and consequences of a Bylaws amendment, and to determine the best way forward in WS1. A number of these could (and probably should) generate (or be recast as) "Stress Tests." This is very much a first draft (or 1.1, since I did revisit it once), so further contributions and revisions are welcomed. Greg On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page<https://twitter.com/GregShatan> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: Avri, same tactics as usual. Not unexpected. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Avri, You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus. Greg On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi, Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech. I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression. avri On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org<mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org<mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org<mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org<mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
Dear All I understand your strong position in regard with such an important, fundamental and delicate subject. I am involved since almost 12 years in various fora , UN. Multilateral ,NGO dealing with such a sensitive issue. As some of us has already indicated once we open the discussions on RIGHTS , immediately the issue of OBLIGATIONS appears whether in form if social, individual, ethical and.,,,. Moreover, some of you intended to puck up from one or several resolutions adopted at some if these fora or elsewhere on a selective basis and other selective idea from other sources put them together to satisfy your views. But these resolutions or compilations are reflecting various element to balance the consolidated text in order that everybody feels happy as his or her views are found in that overall Outcome. But if you select one or two elements in isolation from the balancing elements in a selective manner then you would get into serious difficulties as you have broken the consensus prevailed when such materials were globally consented Once again we do not need to enter into derails but just a very high level reference to UNDOHR snd International Covenant on Political.,... Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Aug 2015, at 18:39, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thank you for all the thought you are putting into this effort – consistent with the generous amount of time/commitment you have put into our CCWG work generally.
I have two comments to this suggested approach.
First, I come down on the side of others on the list who have said that this level of detail in WS1 may be over-complicating things. As I see it, our job in WS1 is to try to come up with the statement that eluded us prior to issuing Draft Proposal Two on Aug. 3 – a statement about ICANN’s commitment toward the respect of fundamental human rights within its mission. We were very close.
The greater detail should be left for WS2. In fact, it might be possible to address this issue by adding a new sentence to follow either of the examples we posted at paragraph 151 of the proposal, perhaps something like this: “The CCWG will develop a more complete statement of this commitment in Work Stream Two.”
Secondly (and IMO with respect to WS2), where you say below: “understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws …” I would suggest “understanding how these rights interact with ICANN’s existing obligations under applicable laws …”.
David McAuley
From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 5:35 PM To: wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected
In terms of next steps, here is a list I put in an email about a week ago, slightly adapted for the current context. study/analysis/discussion of the underlying documents (treaties, conventions, guidelines, standards, etc.) (which in turn requires determining which documents are relevant -- there have been several helpful suggestions but that can't automatically be taken as exhaustive or on-target), understanding the rights put forth in these documents ( and any other rights put forth as human rights in the WG) , understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact "human rights", understanding how these rights may interact and be balanced amongst themselves,
understanding how these rights relate to and interact with ICANN's mission and activities, understanding how these rights interact with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions and how these interactions would take place and be resolved in the ICANN framework), understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws and regulations (some of which embody, in differing fashions and degrees, relevant international treaties and conventions) how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's Corporate Social Responsibility and what efforts have been made or need to be made in that regard , find out how other organizations similar to ICANN (e.g., I* organizations) have dealt with these issues, determining which Bylaws amendment is the most appropriate outcome relating to this issue (and noting that various proposals have been floated in recent weeks), understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other B ylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative ICANN documents, determining what efforts may need to take place and what groups may need to be formed as a result of a Bylaw amendment (including without limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or Cross-Community Working Groups ) , understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"), what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.), whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which are already in place, what the result, effects and consequences (intentional and unintentional) of various impact analysis outcomes would be (either on present policy and implementation, on future policy and implementation and on other ICANN activities). I think the last 4 points can be left to WS2. For the rest, we'll need to balance work in WS1 vs. WS2, but I think each requires some work in WS1 to have a framework of understanding the meaning and consequences of a Bylaws amendment, and to determine the best way forward in WS1. A number of these could (and probably should) generate (or be recast as) "Stress Tests."
This is very much a first draft (or 1.1, since I did revisit it once), so further contributions and revisions are welcomed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote: Avri,
same tactics as usual.
Not unexpected.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
There is nothing sensitive here. Human Rights are Human Rights, whether some nation states accept it or not. And, they are absolute, not subject to conditions. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 8, 2015, at 10:58, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All I understand your strong position in regard with such an important, fundamental and delicate subject. I am involved since almost 12 years in various fora , UN. Multilateral ,NGO dealing with such a sensitive issue. As some of us has already indicated once we open the discussions on RIGHTS , immediately the issue of OBLIGATIONS appears whether in form if social, individual, ethical and.,,,. Moreover, some of you intended to puck up from one or several resolutions adopted at some if these fora or elsewhere on a selective basis and other selective idea from other sources put them together to satisfy your views. But these resolutions or compilations are reflecting various element to balance the consolidated text in order that everybody feels happy as his or her views are found in that overall Outcome. But if you select one or two elements in isolation from the balancing elements in a selective manner then you would get into serious difficulties as you have broken the consensus prevailed when such materials were globally consented Once again we do not need to enter into derails but just a very high level reference to UNDOHR snd International Covenant on Political.,... Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Aug 2015, at 18:39, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thank you for all the thought you are putting into this effort – consistent with the generous amount of time/commitment you have put into our CCWG work generally.
I have two comments to this suggested approach.
First, I come down on the side of others on the list who have said that this level of detail in WS1 may be over-complicating things. As I see it, our job in WS1 is to try to come up with the statement that eluded us prior to issuing Draft Proposal Two on Aug. 3 – a statement about ICANN’s commitment toward the respect of fundamental human rights within its mission. We were very close.
The greater detail should be left for WS2. In fact, it might be possible to address this issue by adding a new sentence to follow either of the examples we posted at paragraph 151 of the proposal, perhaps something like this: “The CCWG will develop a more complete statement of this commitment in Work Stream Two.”
Secondly (and IMO with respect to WS2), where you say below: “understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws …” I would suggest “understanding how these rights interact with ICANN’s existing obligations under applicable laws …”.
David McAuley
From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 5:35 PM To: wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected
In terms of next steps, here is a list I put in an email about a week ago, slightly adapted for the current context. study/analysis/discussion of the underlying documents (treaties, conventions, guidelines, standards, etc.) (which in turn requires determining which documents are relevant -- there have been several helpful suggestions but that can't automatically be taken as exhaustive or on-target), understanding the rights put forth in these documents ( and any other rights put forth as human rights in the WG) , understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact "human rights", understanding how these rights may interact and be balanced amongst themselves,
understanding how these rights relate to and interact with ICANN's mission and activities, understanding how these rights interact with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions and how these interactions would take place and be resolved in the ICANN framework), understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws and regulations (some of which embody, in differing fashions and degrees, relevant international treaties and conventions) how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's Corporate Social Responsibility and what efforts have been made or need to be made in that regard , find out how other organizations similar to ICANN (e.g., I* organizations) have dealt with these issues, determining which Bylaws amendment is the most appropriate outcome relating to this issue (and noting that various proposals have been floated in recent weeks), understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other B ylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative ICANN documents, determining what efforts may need to take place and what groups may need to be formed as a result of a Bylaw amendment (including without limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or Cross-Community Working Groups ) , understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"), what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.), whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which are already in place, what the result, effects and consequences (intentional and unintentional) of various impact analysis outcomes would be (either on present policy and implementation, on future policy and implementation and on other ICANN activities). I think the last 4 points can be left to WS2. For the rest, we'll need to balance work in WS1 vs. WS2, but I think each requires some work in WS1 to have a framework of understanding the meaning and consequences of a Bylaws amendment, and to determine the best way forward in WS1. A number of these could (and probably should) generate (or be recast as) "Stress Tests."
This is very much a first draft (or 1.1, since I did revisit it once), so further contributions and revisions are welcomed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote: Avri,
same tactics as usual.
Not unexpected.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
Nope. By that I mean they are only subject to the conditions expressed within themselves. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 8, 2015, at 12:33, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Some are.
On 08/08/2015 11:54 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: And, they are absolute, not subject to conditions.
This bounced, so again, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 8, 2015, at 11:54, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
There is nothing sensitive here.
Human Rights are Human Rights, whether some nation states accept it or not.
And, they are absolute, not subject to conditions.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 8, 2015, at 10:58, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All I understand your strong position in regard with such an important, fundamental and delicate subject. I am involved since almost 12 years in various fora , UN. Multilateral ,NGO dealing with such a sensitive issue. As some of us has already indicated once we open the discussions on RIGHTS , immediately the issue of OBLIGATIONS appears whether in form if social, individual, ethical and.,,,. Moreover, some of you intended to puck up from one or several resolutions adopted at some if these fora or elsewhere on a selective basis and other selective idea from other sources put them together to satisfy your views. But these resolutions or compilations are reflecting various element to balance the consolidated text in order that everybody feels happy as his or her views are found in that overall Outcome. But if you select one or two elements in isolation from the balancing elements in a selective manner then you would get into serious difficulties as you have broken the consensus prevailed when such materials were globally consented Once again we do not need to enter into derails but just a very high level reference to UNDOHR snd International Covenant on Political.,... Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Aug 2015, at 18:39, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thank you for all the thought you are putting into this effort – consistent with the generous amount of time/commitment you have put into our CCWG work generally.
I have two comments to this suggested approach.
First, I come down on the side of others on the list who have said that this level of detail in WS1 may be over-complicating things. As I see it, our job in WS1 is to try to come up with the statement that eluded us prior to issuing Draft Proposal Two on Aug. 3 – a statement about ICANN’s commitment toward the respect of fundamental human rights within its mission. We were very close.
The greater detail should be left for WS2. In fact, it might be possible to address this issue by adding a new sentence to follow either of the examples we posted at paragraph 151 of the proposal, perhaps something like this: “The CCWG will develop a more complete statement of this commitment in Work Stream Two.”
Secondly (and IMO with respect to WS2), where you say below: “understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws …” I would suggest “understanding how these rights interact with ICANN’s existing obligations under applicable laws …”.
David McAuley
From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 5:35 PM To: wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected
In terms of next steps, here is a list I put in an email about a week ago, slightly adapted for the current context. study/analysis/discussion of the underlying documents (treaties, conventions, guidelines, standards, etc.) (which in turn requires determining which documents are relevant -- there have been several helpful suggestions but that can't automatically be taken as exhaustive or on-target), understanding the rights put forth in these documents ( and any other rights put forth as human rights in the WG) , understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact "human rights", understanding how these rights may interact and be balanced amongst themselves,
understanding how these rights relate to and interact with ICANN's mission and activities, understanding how these rights interact with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions and how these interactions would take place and be resolved in the ICANN framework), understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws and regulations (some of which embody, in differing fashions and degrees, relevant international treaties and conventions) how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's Corporate Social Responsibility and what efforts have been made or need to be made in that regard , find out how other organizations similar to ICANN (e.g., I* organizations) have dealt with these issues, determining which Bylaws amendment is the most appropriate outcome relating to this issue (and noting that various proposals have been floated in recent weeks), understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other B ylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative ICANN documents, determining what efforts may need to take place and what groups may need to be formed as a result of a Bylaw amendment (including without limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or Cross-Community Working Groups ) , understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"), what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.), whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which are already in place, what the result, effects and consequences (intentional and unintentional) of various impact analysis outcomes would be (either on present policy and implementation, on future policy and implementation and on other ICANN activities). I think the last 4 points can be left to WS2. For the rest, we'll need to balance work in WS1 vs. WS2, but I think each requires some work in WS1 to have a framework of understanding the meaning and consequences of a Bylaws amendment, and to determine the best way forward in WS1. A number of these could (and probably should) generate (or be recast as) "Stress Tests."
This is very much a first draft (or 1.1, since I did revisit it once), so further contributions and revisions are welcomed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote: Avri,
same tactics as usual.
Not unexpected.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
Dear All, It seems people have forgotten or living in total isolation from the rest of the world It has noting to do with whether or not a given nation accepts or not accept to respect human rights. The issue is that what amalgam people prepare under " free flow of information" And " freedom of expression"' Is freedom of expression is without any limit i.e. Offending the public or a category if society under that freedom. Inciting the people to act in their defence of their conviction or their fate or their believe. Free flow of unfounded allegation . Distribution of inappropriate images or caricature or ..... People should mot be offended or humiliated or ....under either of these two terms. This is my personal and professional and conviction views which foes nit reflect views of any entity at all and shall not be interpreted as representing the views if a given. Entity This view may or may not be shared.by others. Getting into detailed discussion which end up with texts which goes beyond the very purpose and objective of HR would be counterproductive Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Aug 2015, at 12:54, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
There is nothing sensitive here.
Human Rights are Human Rights, whether some nation states accept it or not.
And, they are absolute, not subject to conditions.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 8, 2015, at 10:58, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All I understand your strong position in regard with such an important, fundamental and delicate subject. I am involved since almost 12 years in various fora , UN. Multilateral ,NGO dealing with such a sensitive issue. As some of us has already indicated once we open the discussions on RIGHTS , immediately the issue of OBLIGATIONS appears whether in form if social, individual, ethical and.,,,. Moreover, some of you intended to puck up from one or several resolutions adopted at some if these fora or elsewhere on a selective basis and other selective idea from other sources put them together to satisfy your views. But these resolutions or compilations are reflecting various element to balance the consolidated text in order that everybody feels happy as his or her views are found in that overall Outcome. But if you select one or two elements in isolation from the balancing elements in a selective manner then you would get into serious difficulties as you have broken the consensus prevailed when such materials were globally consented Once again we do not need to enter into derails but just a very high level reference to UNDOHR snd International Covenant on Political.,... Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 7 Aug 2015, at 18:39, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thank you for all the thought you are putting into this effort – consistent with the generous amount of time/commitment you have put into our CCWG work generally.
I have two comments to this suggested approach.
First, I come down on the side of others on the list who have said that this level of detail in WS1 may be over-complicating things. As I see it, our job in WS1 is to try to come up with the statement that eluded us prior to issuing Draft Proposal Two on Aug. 3 – a statement about ICANN’s commitment toward the respect of fundamental human rights within its mission. We were very close.
The greater detail should be left for WS2. In fact, it might be possible to address this issue by adding a new sentence to follow either of the examples we posted at paragraph 151 of the proposal, perhaps something like this: “The CCWG will develop a more complete statement of this commitment in Work Stream Two.”
Secondly (and IMO with respect to WS2), where you say below: “understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws …” I would suggest “understanding how these rights interact with ICANN’s existing obligations under applicable laws …”.
David McAuley
From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 5:35 PM To: wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected
In terms of next steps, here is a list I put in an email about a week ago, slightly adapted for the current context. study/analysis/discussion of the underlying documents (treaties, conventions, guidelines, standards, etc.) (which in turn requires determining which documents are relevant -- there have been several helpful suggestions but that can't automatically be taken as exhaustive or on-target), understanding the rights put forth in these documents ( and any other rights put forth as human rights in the WG) , understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact "human rights", understanding how these rights may interact and be balanced amongst themselves,
understanding how these rights relate to and interact with ICANN's mission and activities, understanding how these rights interact with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions and how these interactions would take place and be resolved in the ICANN framework), understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws and regulations (some of which embody, in differing fashions and degrees, relevant international treaties and conventions) how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's Corporate Social Responsibility and what efforts have been made or need to be made in that regard , find out how other organizations similar to ICANN (e.g., I* organizations) have dealt with these issues, determining which Bylaws amendment is the most appropriate outcome relating to this issue (and noting that various proposals have been floated in recent weeks), understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other B ylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative ICANN documents, determining what efforts may need to take place and what groups may need to be formed as a result of a Bylaw amendment (including without limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or Cross-Community Working Groups ) , understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"), what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.), whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which are already in place, what the result, effects and consequences (intentional and unintentional) of various impact analysis outcomes would be (either on present policy and implementation, on future policy and implementation and on other ICANN activities). I think the last 4 points can be left to WS2. For the rest, we'll need to balance work in WS1 vs. WS2, but I think each requires some work in WS1 to have a framework of understanding the meaning and consequences of a Bylaws amendment, and to determine the best way forward in WS1. A number of these could (and probably should) generate (or be recast as) "Stress Tests."
This is very much a first draft (or 1.1, since I did revisit it once), so further contributions and revisions are welcomed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote: Avri,
same tactics as usual.
Not unexpected.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
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
There's bucket loads of caselaw on this. In short: "balancing qualified rights", and "margin of appreciation" This does not stop us putting in a high-level requiremetn. It means we should not attempt to promote one of the human rights above others. (Like giving right to property greater weight in the ICANN process than the other rights, perhaps?) Nigel On 08/08/2015 02:21 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Is freedom of expression is without any limit i.e. Offending the public or a category if society under that freedom. Inciting the people to act in their defence of their conviction or their fate or their believe. Free flow of unfounded allegation . Distribution of inappropriate images or caricature or .....
ICANN's mission and activities,
o understanding how these rights interact
with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions and how these interactions would take place and be resolved in the ICANN framework),
o understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws and regulations (some of which embody, in differing fashions and degrees, relevant international treaties and conventions)
o
how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's Corporate Social Responsibility and what efforts have been made or need to be made in that regard
,
* find out
how other organizations similar to ICANN
(e.g., I* organizations)
have dealt with these issues,
* determining
which Bylaws
amendment is the most appropriate outcome relating to this issue (and noting that various proposals have been floated in recent weeks),
* understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other
B
ylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative ICANN documents,
*
determining what efforts may need to take place
and what groups may need to be formed
as a result of
a Bylaw
amendment (including without limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or Cross-Community Working Groups
)
,
*
understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"),
* what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.), * whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which are already in place, * what the result, effects and consequences (intentional and unintentional) of various impact analysis outcomes would be (either on present policy and implementation, on future policy and implementation and on other ICANN activities).
I think the last 4 points can be left to WS2.For the rest, we'll need to balance work in WS1 vs. WS2, but I think each requires some work in WS1 to have a framework of understanding the meaning and consequences of a Bylaws amendment, and to determine the best way forward in WS1. A number of these could (and probably should) generate (or be recast as) "Stress Tests."
This is very much a first draft (or 1.1, since I did revisit it once), so further contributions and revisions are welcomed.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page <https://twitter.com/GregShatan>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Avri,
same tactics as usual.
Not unexpected.
el
--
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Avri,
You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote: > I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the > discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a > discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political > correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not > inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas > -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite > damaging.... > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> > <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>> wrote: > > > > On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: > > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke. > > > I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. > Please do > not cheapen this discussion. > > avri > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > Wp4 mailing list > Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wp4 mailing list > Wp4@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
You really know you've made it into the consciousness politic when someone does a parody Twitter feed for you!! On 08/06/2015 09:17 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page <https://twitter.com/GregShatan>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Avri,
same tactics as usual.
Not unexpected.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Avri,
You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make. I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you speech.
I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make things seem hidden and nefarious. That too is freedom of expression.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote: > I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the > discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a > discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political > correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not > inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas > -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite > damaging.... > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> > <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>> wrote: > > > > On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: > > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke. > > > I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. > Please do > not cheapen this discussion. > > avri > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > Wp4 mailing list > Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> <mailto:Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wp4 mailing list > Wp4@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
This is not intended to be a roadblock. Quite the opposite. But dashing off a sentence and then "see you in Dublin" is not going to work. We need to put some work in now. It shouldn't be that hard and it shouldn't take months, but it also shouldn't be that easy to change the ICANN bylaws either. I'm willing to put the work in now. It's those who aren't who will delay the process and the result. We cannot adopt a bylaws change on the basis of "caveat emptor." (A little Latin always elevates a discussion....) Greg On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote:
Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- 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
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Greg
I'm willing to put the work in now. It's those who aren't who will delay the process and the result.
+1 and i don't think we will be on this list if we are not interested (certainly not for me). I mainly joined because i value HR and would like to learn/be part of the process that attempts to integrated that into the governing document of an organisation like ICANN which is supposed to be(arguably) largely technical. In the long run, even if its finally concluded that HR cannot be added into ICANN governing document, it should be based on clear and convincing rationale, same should also apply if HR elements is to be included. Looking forward to the deliberation, which has already started by the way ;-) Cheers!
We cannot adopt a bylaws change on the basis of "caveat emptor." (A little Latin always elevates a discussion....)
Greg
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote:
Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
On 08/06/2015 08:39 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
This is not intended to be a roadblock. Quite the opposite. But dashing off a sentence and then "see you in Dublin" is not going to work. We need to put some work in now. It shouldn't be that hard and it shouldn't take months, but it also shouldn't be that easy to change the ICANN bylaws either.
Stop agreeing with me! (Or rather, keep it up!).
I'm willing to put the work in now.#
Me too.
We cannot adopt a bylaws change on the basis of "caveat emptor." (A little Latin always elevates a discussion....)
My generation is the last to have been taught Latin routinely at school (mid 1970s). But when I did my law school studies (2004-2008), the use of Latin was was comprehensively deprecated, following the Woolf reforms. So (major cultural difference ahead), to me, a little Latin serves to isolate and exclude. And as both Denning and Steinbeck showed us in their different fields: very simple English can be the most elegant and accessible. (If you haven't come across it before, do please read Denning in dissentia in Miller -v- Jackson). nigel
And I agree with Greg. Again. But in British English, that '500 year old colloquialism' is current idiom. Where I sit, it carries absolutely no hidden meaning or (a more modern idiom) "dog-whistle politics". On 08/06/2015 08:34 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear All, I have spent years discussing ,arguing, disagreeing, disputing and finally agreed to just have a very high level refernce to UN DECLARATION on human rights and INTERNATIONAL Covenant on civil and political rights That all Not writing an essay nor a book. The more precise ,concise, general and high level, the better Regards Kavouss 2015-08-07 0:13 GMT+02:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:
And I agree with Greg. Again.
But in British English, that '500 year old colloquialism' is current idiom.
Where I sit, it carries absolutely no hidden meaning or (a more modern idiom) "dog-whistle politics".
On 08/06/2015 08:34 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite damaging....
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote: > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights. Please do not cheapen this discussion.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
I like to add my +1 to Greg on this one; Committing to a general HR statement that is not clearly scored/defined could be dangerous, especially as we would not like any major change to be done on anything that has been agreed upon in WS1 Regards On 6 Aug 2015 7:28 pm, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we need to do more than just wordsmith a simple statement if its going to be a part of ICANN's core values in the ICANN bylaws. The bylaws provision is just the tip of the iceberg. We need to have a common understanding of what we mean and what existing human rights standards (declarations, conventions, etc.) we are referring to, and we need to have a sense of the consequences (intended and otherwise) of our efforts. Some of us may have spent many years and many hours working with and getting to understand the human rights landscape; others have not. Some of us may say we know what we mean when we refer to human rights. That's not enough. We all need to know what we mean, and we need to know that we mean basically the same thing. This doesn't have to be exhaustive (or exhausting).
There's certain a lot of work that can be put into WS2, in terms of fleshing things out, considering issues such as impacts assessments, reviews, etc. But we can't just stop with a statement and leave its meaning for WS2. Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.*
Greg ________ * Recognizing this is a somewhat culturally specific term, I offer a brief explanation. "Poke" is an archaic term for a bag, the advice literally being given is 'don't buy a pig until you have seen it.' Per Wikipedia, "The phrase can also be applied to accepting an idea or plan without a full understanding of its basis." In the English language, this can be traced back to at least 1530:
*Fraser's Magazine,* 1858, reprinted a piece from Richard Hill's (or
Hilles') *Common-place Book*, 1530, which gave this advice to market traders: "When ye proffer the pigge open the poke." http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-pig-in-a-poke.html
NB: This is apparently not the same Richard Hill dealt with from time to time in these and other lists. It is presumably a complete coincidence that the said Mr. Hill's organization is called APIG.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Avri,
I am in full agreement with you.
We need something we can all live with in WS1 and can sort out the casualties in WS2, if any.
el
On 2015-08-06 17:40, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
In this case I think there may be a number of solutions that are right, especially when we remember all we are trying to do for WS1 is to record a bylaws commitment to respect human rights in the work ICANN does. We are not trying to solve all the complex of issues that we may want too bring up. We need to find a way to just pick one.
I really think trying to wordsmith as simple a statement as possible is still out best alternative.
Though I can think of no better reason to miss our deadlines than a discussion of ICANN's Corporate responsibility to respect human rights, something I think I could work on forever, it would be nice if we didn't miss the deadline because of the discussion. But if we do miss the deadline, that's life. We have seen that the sky does not fall when a deadline is missed. And this is important.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 09:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Avri,
we need to get this right.
We are not going to let the outcome dictated by arbitrary and self imposed time frames.
el [...]
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
Hi, I will just state up front that I am beginning to see this conversation as setting the stage to say "Oh but it is too hard for us to define this ... Human rights might be dangerous" And that I reject in the strongest terms. If we need to spend months trying to 'understand' what the pig people are so afraid of looks like, then fine, lets spend the time and start from the beginning with the assumption that no one in this group knows what human rights are. avri On 06-Aug-15 15:12, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
I like to add my +1 to Greg on this one; Committing to a general HR statement that is not clearly scored/defined could be dangerous, especially as we would not like any major change to be done on anything that has been agreed upon in WS1
Regards
On 6 Aug 2015 7:28 pm, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think we need to do more than just wordsmith a simple statement if its going to be a part of ICANN's core values in the ICANN bylaws. The bylaws provision is just the tip of the iceberg. We need to have a common understanding of what we mean and what existing human rights standards (declarations, conventions, etc.) we are referring to, and we need to have a sense of the consequences (intended and otherwise) of our efforts. Some of us may have spent many years and many hours working with and getting to understand the human rights landscape; others have not. Some of us may say we know what we mean when we refer to human rights. That's not enough. We all need to know what we mean, and we need to know that we mean basically the same thing. This doesn't have to be exhaustive (or exhausting).
There's certain a lot of work that can be put into WS2, in terms of fleshing things out, considering issues such as impacts assessments, reviews, etc. But we can't just stop with a statement and leave its meaning for WS2. Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.*
Greg ________ * Recognizing this is a somewhat culturally specific term, I offer a brief explanation. "Poke" is an archaic term for a bag, the advice literally being given is 'don't buy a pig until you have seen it.' Per Wikipedia, "The phrase can also be applied to accepting an idea or plan without a full understanding of its basis." In the English language, this can be traced back to at least 1530:
/Fraser's Magazine,/ 1858, reprinted a piece from Richard Hill's (or Hilles') /Common-place Book/, 1530, which gave this advice to market traders: "When ye proffer the pigge open the poke." http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-pig-in-a-poke.html
NB: This is apparently not the same Richard Hill dealt with from time to time in these and other lists. It is presumably a complete coincidence that the said Mr. Hill's organization is called APIG.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Avri,
I am in full agreement with you.
We need something we can all live with in WS1 and can sort out the casualties in WS2, if any.
el
On 2015-08-06 17:40, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > In this case I think there may be a number of solutions that are > right, especially when we remember all we are trying to do for WS1 > is to record a bylaws commitment to respect human rights in the > work ICANN does. We are not trying to solve all the complex of > issues that we may want too bring up. We need to find a way to > just pick one. > > I really think trying to wordsmith as simple a statement as > possible is still out best alternative. > > Though I can think of no better reason to miss our deadlines than > a discussion of ICANN's Corporate responsibility to respect human > rights, something I think I could work on forever, it would be > nice if we didn't miss the deadline because of the discussion. > But if we do miss the deadline, that's life. We have seen that > the sky does not fall when a deadline is missed. And this is > important. > > avri > > > > > > On 06-Aug-15 09:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: >> Avri, >> >> we need to get this right. >> >> We are not going to let the outcome dictated by arbitrary and >> self imposed time frames. >> >> el [...] _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ 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
I am not sure that Greg's statement can be read as "no major change". I fully support his assessment of where we are (which is that we come from different starting points). We need to understand (and if necessary define) what the objective is. Then we need to come to consensus on a high-level statement to incorporate as a By-Law. Then, in WS2, we must "give colour and depth" to the high-level statement.
On 06-Aug-15 15:12, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
I like to add my +1 to Greg on this one; Committing to a general HR statement that is not clearly scored/defined could be dangerous, especially as we would not like any major change to be done on anything that has been agreed upon in WS1
Hi, Just so it's clear, the "major change" I refer is related to not changing the texts that has been included in WS1 proposal during WS2. So if it's agreed in WS1 that certain things will be done, it won't be good enough to change those in WS2 and that's one of the reason why anything that goes into WS1 should be what has agreed to be needed and realistic. I don't really care whether it's the same thing with what Greg wrote but it's one of my rationale for adding a +1 to his statement. Hope that helps. Regards On 6 Aug 2015 11:11 pm, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I am not sure that Greg's statement can be read as "no major change". I fully support his assessment of where we are (which is that we come from different starting points).
We need to understand (and if necessary define) what the objective is.
Then we need to come to consensus on a high-level statement to incorporate as a By-Law.
Then, in WS2, we must "give colour and depth" to the high-level statement.
On 06-Aug-15 15:12, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
I like to add my +1 to Greg on this one; Committing to a general HR statement that is not clearly scored/defined could be dangerous, especially as we would not like any major change to be done on anything that has been agreed upon in WS1
_______________________________________________
Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
participants (13)
-
Avri Doria -
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
-
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Martin Boyle -
Matthew Shears -
McAuley, David -
Niels ten Oever -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Twomey -
Seun Ojedeji -
Stephanie Perrin