September 2016 - Ws2-hr - lists.icann.org

Applicable Law - that is applicable to ICANN and requires it to protect free expression internally
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sept. 28, 2016

Sept. 28, 2016

Nigel, I have a question about your quote from this e-mail. The quote is: " There is no applicable law, for example, that protects individuals and organisations against breaches of their right to free expression." You seem to be saying that on expiration of the IANA contract, ICANN has a lesser duty under applicable law in relation to freedom of expression since it will be " a private company that no longer has any formal connection to the US Government." I see your point in that all the Federal Acquisition Regulation obligations contained in the IANA contract go by the wayside. One reason I ask about this is due to the U.S. Labor Law in relation to freedom of speech/expression that I think quite clearly governs ICANN’s employment practices – at least in the U.S. For example, we have a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that held that Abercrombie & Fitch could not turn down employment to a woman who wore a hijab to her interview because its dress code called for a “classic East Coast collegiate style”. The Supreme Court held the decision was apparently motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating the young woman’s religious practice. The vote was 8 to 1. So this case, decided in June of 2015, is definitely “applicable law” in relation to ICANN’s business practices and definitely requires ICANN to avoid “breaching” individual rights to freedom of expression. (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch) I think this is a discussion that gets to the heart of Paul McGrady’s repeated requests that we focus on the issue of “applicable law”. Where it gets much harder is when we discuss how ICANN may be obligated not because of its role as an employer, but rather because of its role as the Awarder in Chief of registry contracts. If anyone is interested in applicable law that governs ICANN employee reasonable accommodation for freedom of expression in the U.S., (not sure about outside the U.S.), the following link may be helpful: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/workplace_religious_accommodation.c… Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _______________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com -----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:20 PM To: ws2-hr(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC Paul is correct. I also must take issue with Greg. The construction of the by law so as to restrict ICANN to only respect human rights where an applicable DOMESTIC law requires it to, is wrong, and is the exact reason I argued, in the minority, against the phrase. There is no applicable law,, for example, that protects individuals and organisations against breaches of their right to free expression. If there is, tell me what it is, and where I can read and construe it. In particular, please tell me the section of that law that makes it applicable to a private company that no longer has any formal connection to the US Government. On 27/09/16 21:05, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: > I guess you folks leave me confused. Certainly, all human rights are due to be respected. But if the FoI is to have any use at all, doesn't it have to deal with actual use case scenarios that are applicable to ICANN? There are human rights prohibitions against torture, that ICANN must respect -- but the chances of that particular human right having any relevance to anything that ICANN will ever do is vanishingly small, no? Why would we construct an FoI that is so amorphous that it accommodates that possibility if in doing so we lose adequate guidance for the HR issues that are more likely to be relevant? > > Can we not agree that human rights are universal and indivisible but that some of them are more likely of applicability to ICANN's operations than others? Or is that really so controversial a statement that it can't be made? > > Paul > > Paul Rosenzweig > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 > www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com> > My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Daniel Appelman > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 2:59 PM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Bastiaan Goslings' > <bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net<mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> > Cc: ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC > > Thanks for your thoughts, Anne. I never advocated excluding any human rights from the framework, of course. But none of the comments thus far have convinced me that they are all equally relevant for ICANN. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:53 AM > To: Daniel Appelman; 'Bastiaan Goslings'; Greg Shatan > Cc: ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC > > Dan, > I think that in the FOI-HR, it would be a mistake to single out which Human Rights we think have to be considered (to the exclusion of others) in ICANN's processes and business relationships. I think the Framework must leave the freedom for ICANN, in its various processes, to consider and balance all international human rights. To exclude some would be dangerous - and just plain wrong, since, a Nigel pointed out in the call I had to miss, there is, in connection with any such human rights evaluation, a balancing act to be performed. > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > Of Counsel > 520.629.4428 office > 520.879.4725 fax > AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > _______________________________ > > Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP > One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 > Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > lrrc.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Appelman [mailto:dappelman@mh-llp.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:50 AM > To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Bastiaan Goslings'; Greg Shatan > Cc: ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC > > Anne: So does that first statement also mean that in your opinion it is not true that some human rights are more RELEVANT to ICANN's activities and mission than others? And is that the consensus of the WG? > I do agree with the statements in your second and third paragraphs, btw. > Dan > > -----Original Message----- > From: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:34 AM > To: 'Bastiaan Goslings'; Greg Shatan > Cc: ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC > > It is not true that "some human rights are more important than others". I agree with those who have noted that continued attempts to "cherry-pick" among human rights are inappropriate and not in scope for the task. This is clear from the document stating the conclusions from WS1 and that document was already agreed on by the subteam in a prior meeting. > > I also wish to re-emphasize that the primary role in which ICANN may > have a positive impact on human rights is in its primary business > relationships. These are the contractual obligations with registries > and registrars. Again, these are matters which must ultimately be > addressed via PDP so in developing an FOI-HR, we must take that into > account and understand that we are developing an FOI-HR that will be > applied in the PDP process (as well as other processes within ICANN.) > > As I understand it, there is no "applicable law" that will require application of the FOI-HR to the PDP process. That would be wholly voluntary. Some may feel this is beyond scope and mission as to what the Bylaw requires. Would like to know others thoughts on this point. > > Anne > > Anne E. Aikman-Scalese > Of Counsel > 520.629.4428 office > 520.879.4725 fax > AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > _______________________________ > > Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP > One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 > Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 > lrrc.com > -----Original Message----- > From: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Bastiaan Goslings > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:20 AM > To: Greg Shatan > Cc: ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC > > I do not think we need to establish _which_ human rights ICANN should respect (more). The way I interpret the core value is that the applicability of (‘internationally recognised') rights is determined by ‘applicable law’. ‘As required’. > > Furthermore, the core value does not speak of ‘commit’ or a ‘commitment’ - because it is a core value. Together with the other values, and that could be a balancing act, it ‘should also guide the decisions and actions of ICANN’. > > (The ‘also’ refers to the commitments in section 1.2) > > -Bastiaan > >> On 27 Sep 2016, at 19:56, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> You seem to assume that the Framework will deal with rights at the granular level. I don't think it needs to or should. The question is "What human rights is ICANN committed to respect?" I don't think the answer should be "Some of them." >> >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Appelman <dappelman(a)mh-llp.com<mailto:dappelman@mh-llp.com>> wrote: >> Some human rights are obviously more applicable to ICANN than others. ICANN’s framework should focus on those in particular. If that’s “cherry-picking” then I don’t understand how anyone could object to it. Why would the framework even bother with human rights that are inapplicable to ICANN’s mission and activities? It’s just not logical. >> >> >> >> From: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On >> Behalf Of Greg Shatan >> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:42 AM >> To: Schweighofer Erich >> Cc: ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 >> UTC >> >> >> >> A response on Erich's last point: >> >> >> >> WS2-HR should focus on the freedom of communication worldwide, subject to usual safeguard clauses + the international human rights treaty obligations. >> >> >> >> This sounds suspiciously like "cherry-picking" (i.e., picking and choosing among human rights obligation), and I am firmly opposed to that. Also while human rights treaty obligations are relevant (and we need to determine what we are referring to as such) they do not bind ICANN, except to the extent they have been adopted and codified by applicable laws. The Bylaw doesn't take us further than that. >> >> >> >> It is not cherry-picking, it is a suggestion which human rights are relevant to be considered. Free communication should be the main concern. >> >> You are right that human rights treaties formally do not bind ICANN but that sound not good in practice. We have to substitute this by self-commitment, as we do now. >> >> >> >> We've been using the term cherry-picking to mean just that -- picking and choosing, menu-style, from the list of human rights and deciding that some are going to be considered and some won't. Whatever you call it, I'm opposed to it. I'm not opposed to choosing among human rights conventions and instruments; indeed, we must do that. But within, e.g., the UDHR, we should not be picking, we need to take it whole as a document. The extent of ICANN's commitment to human rights is stated in the Bylaw, -- to respect internationally recognized human rights as required by applicable law. This is critical in three ways: (1) ICANN's commitment is one of "respecting" (and not protecting or enforcing) human rights (and we need to define what "respect" means in the context of ICANN, which unfortunately does not align with Ruggie's idea of respect for business enterprises); (2) ICANN must look to "internationally recognized human rights" -- no more and no less; and (3) ICANN's co! mmitment i s limited to what is "required by applicable law." ICANN could go further of course (e.g., it could ensure there are gluten free food options at every ICANN meeting and event), but that is not a Bylaws issue and thus not a Framework of Interpretation issue. >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Schweighofer Erich <erich.schweighofer(a)univie.ac.at<mailto:erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at>> wrote: >> >> My clarifications „inline“. Sorry for quick drafting and being unclear. >> >> Erich Schweighofer >> >> >> >> Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. September 2016 17:35 >> An: Schweighofer Erich >> Cc: Niels ten Oever; ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> >> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 >> UTC >> >> >> >> I agree in part and disagree in part: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Schweighofer Erich <erich.schweighofer(a)univie.ac.at<mailto:erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at>> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >> >> The more I read about Ruggie Principles I am convinced that they do not really fit for ICANN. >> >> >> >> I tend to agree with this. >> >> >> >> The hard legal core of ICANN's obligations is much less, even depending on the various jurisdictions. >> >> >> >> I'm not sure what this means. If it means that there are Ruggie >> obligations that don't fit ICANN, then I agree. Otherwise, this >> needs further explanation. >> >> >> >> Yes – Ruggie do not fit properly. ICANN is essential for a global communication platform and must respect related human rights –the “hard core”, subject to the interpretation in the various jurisdictions. >> >> >> >> ICANN is inclusive, e.g. also flexible. >> >> >> >> Again not sure what this means. If this means that ICANN must be >> inclusive of, e.g., New gTLD applicants and ccTLD operators >> (governments and otherwise), whether or not they comply with human >> rights provision, then I agree. ICANN can't be a human rights filter >> for the Internet. If this means something else, it needs further >> explanation. >> >> >> >> It means that we cannot oblige new gTLD applicants or ccTLD operators to comply with human rights above the national interpretation of human rights obligations. There are other fora to discuss compliance with human rights standards. >> >> >> >> WS2-HR should focus on the freedom of communication worldwide, subject to usual safeguard clauses + the international human rights treaty obligations. >> >> >> >> This sounds suspiciously like "cherry-picking" (i.e., picking and choosing among human rights obligation), and I am firmly opposed to that. Also while human rights treaty obligations are relevant (and we need to determine what we are referring to as such) they do not bind ICANN, except to the extent they have been adopted and codified by applicable laws. The Bylaw doesn't take us further than that. >> >> >> >> It is not cherry-picking, it is a suggestion which human rights are relevant to be considered. Free communication should be the main concern. >> >> You are right that human rights treaties formally do not bind ICANN but that sound not good in practice. We have to substitute this by self-commitment, as we do now. >> >> >> >> In an ethical code of ICANN, we can go much further, and here we can re-use Ruggie to some extent. >> >> >> >> An "ethical code of ICANN" is far, far beyond the mandate and scope of this subgroup. Our task is to provide a framework for interpreting the Bylaw. >> >> >> >> It is good to work on an idealistic world but we have to realistic, too. >> >> >> >> That I can agree with. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best, Erich Schweighofer >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] Im >> Auftrag von Niels ten Oever >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. September 2016 11:18 >> An: ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> >> Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> Please find underneath and attached the proposed agenda for the call of September 27, 19:00 UTC. >> >> Comments and suggestions are welcome. >> >> 1. Administrivia >> Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc >> 2. Analysis of Ruggie Principles for ICANN - discussion on UN Guiding >> Principles 15, 13, 19 3. AOB >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> >> -- >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org<http://www.article19.org> >> >> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ws2-hr mailing list >> Ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ws2-hr mailing list >> Ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-hr mailing list > Ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr > > ________________________________ > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-hr mailing list > Ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr > > ________________________________ > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-hr mailing list > Ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-hr mailing list > Ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr > _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

2 1

Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC
by Niels ten Oever Sept. 28, 2016

Sept. 28, 2016

Dear all, Please find underneath and attached the proposed agenda for the call of September 27, 19:00 UTC. Comments and suggestions are welcome. 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. Analysis of Ruggie Principles for ICANN - discussion on UN Guiding Principles 15, 13, 19 3. AOB 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

11 32

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #7 | 27 September
by MSSI Secretariat Sept. 28, 2016

Sept. 28, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #7 - 27 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/sAC4Aw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. Analysis of Ruggie Principles for ICANN - discussion on UN Guiding Principles 15, 13, 19 3. AOB Notes including relevant elements from the chat: Tijani Ben Jemaa: Support GS. Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Chris - I don't know how we can say in the FOI0HR that due diligence process and remediation process can be adopted without an ICANN policy process. Annex 6 says we must consider these items consistent with ICANN existing processes David McAuley (RySG): +1 @ Tijani Farzaneh Badii: b9 and c9? where is that? Vague Brett Schaefer: b and c seems to cross the line established in the Core Value -- "This Core Value does not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations, or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties." Greg Shatan: sophism: a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive. Tatiana Tropina 2: where did will land? can we have a quick summary? Have we got food for thoughts? Agreed to disagree at this point? :) Niels ten oever: Let us move to Principle 13. David McAuley (RySG): Principle 13 - the word "address" is vague and possibly out of scope Chris LaHatte: i understand we have a specific task, so Anne, I understand the restrictions of our tasks, but I don't want adoption of empty principles Tatiano Tropina: ccTLDs cannot be included in any due diligence. Chris LaHatte: so if a cctld does something like censorship or worse can we still criticize them? Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Chris - the principle is not empty if it then produces further action down the road - e.g. a requirement that PDP consider and assess the FOI-HR regardless of the nature of the PDP. David McAuley (RySG): I think I agreed with you @Kavouss - "address" is vague - I'd be surprised if I did not think so before Greg Shatan: 13B is clearly out of our scope. David McAuley (RySG): 13(b) is very broad - seems way out of scope matthew shears: yep Paul McGrady 2: @Avri - I don't hear anyone saying that they don't know what Mr. Ruggie is saying. Even so, isn't the first step would be to determine what human rights obligations ICANN has under applicable law, not turning first to third party resources (especially if those resources are so ambiguous that we need their author to explain what they mean)? Chris LaHatte: @anne, as long as that happens Niels ten Oever 2: @Greg + Tatiana, for ccTLDs and gTLDS or any business relations? Tatiana Tropina 2: David, not only out of scope but opens the room for claims about Niels ten Oever 2: @Greg + Tatiana, for ccTLDs and gTLDS or any business relations? Tatiana Tropina 2: David, not only out of scope but opens the room for claims about enforcement Avri Doria: not the definition in wikipedia - it is a for of Rhetoric used to convince people of a PoV. does not need to be fallacious and does not need to confuse, can even be a educational technique. Niels ten Oever 2: Paul I think only talked about ccTLDs Tatiana Tropina 2: Niels, for any business relations because it's enforcement... Tatiana Tropina 2: and protection! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Agree totally Greg enforcement Paul McGrady 2: Agree with Greg. 13(b) seems to be already excluded under a clear reading of the bylaws requiring that ICANN not get involved in the business of third party enforcement. David McAuley (RySG): not sure I understand the context of ccTLDs and gTLDs comment, Niels Kavous Arasteh: uncertain why people against mitigation and remediation. Avri Doria: what about in ICANN's own activities? Tatiana Tropina 2: Paul, Greg, +1. matthew shears: while I think Ruggie important, I believe we have to first interpret: 1) agree what "respecting human rights" means; 2) agree the "international human rights" and what is appropriate for ICANN, and 3) agree what "applicable law" means in this case" and perhaps return to Ruggie later Niels ten Oever 2: Because if I remember correctly Paul Twomey's argument it was specifically focused on ccTLDs Niels ten Oever 2: Because if I remember correctly Paul Twomey's argument it was specifically focused on ccTLDs Greg Shatan: Avri, I like the wikipedia definition better and thank you for clarifying your intended meaning. Tatiana Tropina 2: Niels, ccTLDs or gTLDs - no matter, (b) is enforcement and protection David McAuley (RySG): thanks @Niels Greg Shatan: Matthew -- agree 10000%,, that is the nub of our job. Niels ten Oever 2: know and show as well? Farzaneh Badii: Matt I agree. I think we should first agree on what "respecting human rights" means Greg Shatan: matthew shears: while I think Ruggie important, I believe we have to fiirst interpret: 1) agree what "respecting human rights" means; 2) agree the "international human rights" and what is appropriate for ICANN, and 3) agree what "applicable law" means in this case" and perhaps return to Ruggie later. Tatiana Tropina 2: Matt, hear hear! Bastiaan Goslings: I agree with Matt too Avri Doria: i think that if the FoI does not include the avoidance of causing harm by our activities, we might as well have a null text for the FoI. Brett Schaefer: Agree with Matt, the discussion seems to presume that Ruggie is agreed to and the starting point for the FoI. It seems to be jumping several important steps. Avri Doria: i see absolutely nothing here that requires content regulation Kavouss Arasteh: Avri+1 Chris LaHatte: +1 Avri Anne aikman-Scalese: Adopting 13 as is could take ICANN to content regulation which would be dangerous as it is outside of its mission and scope. Amdrew Mack: Support AAS - we should not be in content regulation. Paul McGrady 2: Ruggie is in the way of us actually discussing the process we should be on. Can we please start at the beginning instead of the (possible) end? David McAuley (RySG): I tend to agree w Avri's point and think we are experiencing problems trying to shoehorn Ruggie Principles into FoI Tatiana Tropina 2: David, agree with the latter. Kavous Arasteh: Need prevention and mitigation otherwise it is empty words. TatianaTropina: considering all principles imply that principle 13 is clearly interpreted elsewhere and goes to enforcement and protection which is beyond our remit. Anne Aikman-Scalese: AGree with Kavouss that the FOI-HR will require lots of further discussion and application to existing ICANN processes. Niels ten Oever 3: We are only looking at what we could like. With this we are not importing other principles. That is why we are discussing them one by one David McAuley (RySG): I think Tatiana put that well regarding 13(b) matthew shears: + 1 Tatiana Tatiana Tropina 2: Niels, one by one is cool but the lawyer in me always says that you have to interpret the provisions of the whole text in connection with other provisions of the same text. Avri Doria: i thought we had already decided by definiton that we were agains Ruggie principles Greg Shatan: these principles say ICANN's business principles should also respect Human Rights which could be an issue for ICANN. Niels ten Oever: @Greg is the document many different modalities are discussed - breaking relations with third parties should only be last resort (is what is in the Ruggie commentary). Tatiana Tropina 2: Niels, even as a last resort this would be sometimes impossible for ICANN Chris LaHatte: so we need to develop our own set of principles, and just use Ruggie et al as guidelines. Tatiana Tropina 2: Chris, I keep saying this Kavous Arasteh: (suggesting operation for the group by creating sub-teams for 13 and 15). matthew shears: I am ot sure we need to develop principles - let's agree the key focus areas of the bylaw first Greg Shatan: Agree, Chris. At best this is a launching pad for our consideration. Tatiana Tropina 2: Matt, well not literally develop principles but rather develop interpretation. matthew shears: yes Tatiana Tropina 2: 13 (a) with nuances... (for the record) Cláudio Lucena: Is there any concern on the potential scale of the adverse impacts on human rights we're looking at or are we treating all kinds of potential adverse impacts as similar? I'm thinking a general approach that does not address the potential scale of the impacts may pose much higher risks, costs and burdens than those which could be viably and reasonably handled by businesses. Greg Shatan: Agree with Matthew, we don't need to go all the way to principles -- we do need to figure out the parameters in which we interpret ICANN's actions. Avri Doria: i think we need principles not more constraints. guidelines not prohibitions Anne Aikman-Scalese: with respect to 13A and 15A do not agree there convergence because Address is not identified. Kavouss Arasteh: I have raised the point Address is unclear. Avri Doria: what harm do people find in the word address Avri Doria: why is ia a scary word? David McAuley (RySG): what does it mean, @Avri Greg Shatan: Agree that we have not completed discussion of (a). Tatiana Tropina 2: Me too. (a) is not finished. I want more of (a). Avri Doria: look at, discuss and come to some conclusion about. David McAuley (RySG): then we should use such term(s) David McAuley (RySG): in my opinion Avri Doria: it i longer to use a stock phrase than a term we defines, but ok, i guess. Bastiaan Goslings: I would at least want to add 'as required by applicable law.' to art 13a Anne Aikman-Scalese: I would not call 15 a or 13 a as "provisionally agreed" to be part of the FOI-HR - we did not go that far. Niels ten Oever: Adjourned. Documents Presented · HR_Presentation Meeting 6.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/62390448/HR_Presentation%2…>

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #6 | 20 September
by MSSI Secretariat Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Rights Subgroup Meeting #6 – 20 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/oBysAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes 1. Administrivia - Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc Review of the draft agenda, agenda adopted. 2. Analysis of Ruggie Principles for ICANN and drafting teaumry provided by Greg remarks reasonable support for Ruggie principles but need to analyze the specific ones to see which ones apply to ICANN's core values and which ones do not apply. and to what degree they apply. Need to discuss specific principles to determine what can be supported and to develop a framework of implementation. Need to make the work more detailed and constructive to move forward. Question raised as to if ICANN is a business enterprise, as ICANN is a non-profit. 3. Discussion of specific Ruggie Principles - Principle:Business enterprises should respect human rights. This means that they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved. Discussion - Enterprise or non profit, raised concern of the use of the term address and should/may and the meaning/application of the term to ICANN, Question does this work for the ICANN context is the approach recommended to be taken. organization is more like business enterprise - principle appears to have a lot of flexibility - something to be mindful of in considering, this is more of guidance for decisions for ICANN, should not be considered as expansion of ICANNs mission, the bylaw mentions applicable law that deals with human rights, need to look at what the applicable law is, Question raised as to if ICANN is purely a business enterprise - clearly is not ,ICANNs remirt and methods of action is not business enterprise, areas where ICANN does not function as a business enterprise that the Ruggie principles do not apply to ICANN core values, need to look at the bylaw, suggestion to address the issues one by one, need to understand the laws on human rights and then how applicable to ICANN, intent is to determine whether ICAANN should be subject to human rights and is ICANN avoiding its obligations in a core value, bylaws and addressing adverse human rights in which it is involved, ICANN responsibilities bound by applicable law, - Principle - The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights refers to internationally recognized human rights – understood, at a minimum, as those expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Discussion - role of ICANN and how to include it in applicable law 4th Ruggie Principel - Question as to the extend we can apply human rights to ICANN - human rights are carried out and obligations are embedded in state laws that non state actors must follow, how expressed in applicable laws determines with obligations that need to be followed, suggestion Section b does not apply and should be tossed out completely, need to move discussion to list as to whether to keep section b or remove, question as to whom do you seek, to prevent, work to take this text to the ICANN example off list and address at the next session. Documents Presented · Presentation Meeting 5.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61611168/Presentation%20Me…>

1 0

Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda for call September 13 1900 UTC - interpretative tools to Ruggie and business and HR
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear all I’m resending this info to the HR WG as it perhaps was lost in the flood of emails. I feel many of our debates could be more fruitful and fact-based if we had a look at this document when talking about the UN Guiding Principles (Ruggie Principles) and they should be listed as reference material: · The "interpretative guide" of the Ruggie principles: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/RtRInterpretativeGuide.pdf In addition, I also think that the following document could help understand the relation between specific HR and business activities: · “Human Rights Translated: A Business Reference Guide”, which provides a range of examples under each human right http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/globalization/business/docs/Human_Righ… dear Niels: I would appreciate you taking up these docs as reference material best regards jorge -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. September 2016 09:51 An: lists(a)nielstenoever.net; ws2-hr(a)icann.org Betreff: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda for call September 13 1900 UTC Dear Niels I'm not sure whether the "interpretative guide" of the Ruggie principles has already been shared on list: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/RtRInterpretativeGuide.pdf It seems like a useful document for our discussions. Regards Jorge -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Niels ten Oever Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. September 2016 08:15 An: ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda for call September 13 1900 UTC Dear all, Please find underneath the proposed agenda for the call for September 13 1900 UTC. Please let me know if you would like to add, amend or remove any agenda points. 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. Final Discussion on: Summary on what was agreed and discussed on human rights during WS1 (attached and here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rwpw9aSAqboRO2_rNkjMVJPOmYwmdr5B1_M_aNM… ) 3. General Discussion & Q&A on Ruggie Principles and Ruggie FIFA report (attached and here: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.… https://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/79736/1789834/version /1/file/Ruggie_humanrightsFIFA_reportApril2016.pdf ) 4. Discussion on: Analysis of Ruggie Principles for ICANN – Short presentation by Drafting Volunteers https://docs.google.com/document/d/10XMIVosuEfgmXwr7SQjeNLKI8r_hdONrJNV2ih7… 5. AOB Looking forward to the call. Best, Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org<http://www.article19.org> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

1 0

CCWG-Acct HR Subgroup Response to question ICANN Legal should be asked what Human Rights Law is applicable to ICANN operations
by Karen Mulberry Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Here is a memo from Sidley Austin LLP to the CCWG during WS1 that addresses the question the subgroup raised - ICANN Legal should be asked what Human Rights Law is applicable to ICANN operations. ICANN legal is supportive of what is set out in the memo. Karen Mulberry Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives ICANN

2 1

FW: Proposed Agenda Call Sept 6 19:00 UTC
by Karen Mulberry Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

On behalf of ICANN Legal Karen Mulberry Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives ICANN From: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 11:01 AM To: Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry(a)icann.org> Subject: FW: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda Call Sept 6 19:00 UTC Can you please provide this to the HR subgroup? Dear HR-Subgroup members, I understand that the question posed was "'What is the rationale for the addition of 'core values' to the ICANN bylaws, and what are its legal and non-legal implications in your opinion, especially for the human rights bylaw?² The Core Values have historically been part of the ICANN Bylaws, introduced after the ICANN evolution and reform effort in 2002, https://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws/bylaws-15dec02-en.htm. >From 2002 through the Bylaws as they exist today, the Core Values remained unchanged, with the following as guidance for the application of Core Values: "These core values are deliberately expressed in very general terms, so that they may provide useful and relevant guidance in the broadest possible range of circumstances. Because they are not narrowly prescriptive, the specific way in which they apply, individually and collectively, to each new situation will necessarily depend on many factors that cannot be fully anticipated or enumerated; and because they are statements of principle rather than practice, situations will inevitably arise in which perfect fidelity to all eleven core values simultaneously is not possible. Any ICANN body making a recommendation or decision shall exercise its judgment to determine which core values are most relevant and how they apply to the specific circumstances of the case at hand, and to determine, if necessary, an appropriate and defensible balance among competing values.² With the Bylaws drafted to implement WS1, the CCWG recommended the development of both Commitments as well as Core Values, for which the balancing test has changed. Some of the items that were previously Core Values are now expressed as commitments. The balancing test now requires that all of the commitments be met, while Core Values still are dependent upon situations and can be balanced amongst each other. The inclusion of the Human Rights commitment as a Core Value, which was expressly required in Annex 6 of the WS1 report, assures that it is an item that is considered while ICANN is performing its Mission. The implication of this is strong, particularly where the FOI considers how to guide the interpretation of this obligation. Of course, there are already legal obligations that are tethered to human rights obligations (for example, observing laws against human trafficking) that ICANN is already following. Given the long-standing nature of the Core Values section of the ICANN Bylaws, this is a key tool in guiding ICANN¹s operations. They are part of a near 15-year history of ICANN acting within its Mission. If there are more specific questions that you have on this topic, please let us know. Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 USA Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 On 9/6/16, 11:47 AM, "ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Niels ten Oever" <ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of lists(a)nielstenoever.net> wrote: > Dear Jorge, > > The question has been forwarded to ICANN legal and we are awaiting a > response. > > Best, > > Niels > > On 09/07/2016 03:22 AM, Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch wrote: >> Dear Niels >> >> May I kindly request clarification on the status of our inquiry into the >> (legal) effects that the HR commitment we are talking about is a "core >> value"? >> >> According to the new Bylaws "core values" are ³guidance² (³should also >> guide the decisions and actions of ICANN²) and are subject to a >> specific balancing and interpretation clause: >> >> "(c) The Commitments and Core Values are intended to apply in the broadest >> possible range of circumstances. The Commitments reflect ICANN¹s >> fundamental compact with the global Internet community and are intended to >> apply consistently and comprehensively to ICANN¹s activities. The specific >> way in which Core Values are applied, individually and collectively, to any >> given situation may depend on many factors that cannot be fully anticipated >> or enumerated. Situations may arise in which perfect fidelity to all Core >> Values simultaneously is not possible. Accordingly, in any situation where >> one Core Value must be balanced with another, potentially competing Core >> Value, the result of the balancing must serve a policy developed through the >> bottom-up multistakeholder process or otherwise best serve ICANN¹s Mission." >> >> I feel this is quite relevant for our discussions, as it sets the frame >> of the effect of the new HR "core value". >> >> Best and looking forward to your guidance and apologies if I have missed >> any relevant message on this issue >> >> Jorge >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] Im >> Auftrag von Niels ten Oever >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. September 2016 00:19 >> An: ws2-hr(a)icann.org >> Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda Call Sept 6 19:00 UTC >> >> Dear all, >> >> Please find underneath and attached the proposed agenda for our call of >> Sept 6 19:00 UTC. >> >> Also please find attached a rather advanced version of the document >> mentioned under agenda point 2, the summary of the Human Rights work >> under Workstream 1. >> >> 1. Administrivia >> Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc >> 2. Discussion on: the Summary on what was agreed and discussed on human >> rights during WS1 >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rwpw9aSAqboRO2_rNkjMVJPOmYwmdr5B1_M_aNM… >> b4/edit?usp=sharing >> 3. Discussion on: Concerns on possible impacts of Human Rights bylaw and >> FoI >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KcKGRJjuhKEzCh2AZ8PPR_MofOQFBN8CMuJqTG_… >> h4/edit?usp=sharing >> 4. Discussion on FoI draft document >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVnkBYUO… >> 2Q/edit >> 5. AOB >> >> ICANN staff informed me that they are working on providing more real >> time collaboration methods, but currently they do not offer such >> services. So until that time I am afraid we are stuck with Google Docs. >> >> As always feel free to suggest addition or changes to the points above. >> >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> -- >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org> >> >> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-hr mailing list > Ws2-hr(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr >

3 3

Proposed Agenda for call September 20 1900 UTC
by Niels ten Oever Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Dear all, Please find attached the proposed agenda for the call of September 20 1900 UTC. 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. Analysis of Ruggie Principles for ICANN - discussion on First Four Points of Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights https://docs.google.com/document/d/10XMIVosuEfgmXwr7SQjeNLKI8r_ hdONrJNV2ih72V80/edit 3. AOB Looking forward to discuss, as always all inputs and suggestions are welcome. 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

5 7

Considering ICANN procedures and protocols in a manner consistent with Annex 6
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 19, 2016

Please see string below, which was apparently not copied to the list. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D21261.DF37A7E0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 10:10 AM To: 'Kavouss Arasteh'; John Curran; Niels ten Oever; Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch; Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva; Olga Cavalli; <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> Subject: RE: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda for call September 13 1900 UTC Thanks Kavouss. Just a note that if we request GNSO Input in the early stages of a draft framework, this is not a request for a PDP. Again I also note that no contracted party can be bound by any FOI-HR that is not developed pursuant to Consensus Policy, which cannot be adopted without a PDP or Expedited PDP. You misunderstand me in that you think I am attempting to delay. All I am pointing out is that in order to be effective, one must anticipate (as required by Annex 6) the natural consequences of the existing processes and procedures within ICANN. To the degree that we appreciate these, the FOI-HR is bound to be more effective in the long run and sooner. (Notwithstanding my concern re content regulation and consumer protection and IP protection issues related to UDRP procedures.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D2125E.05F5DB30] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 2:10 PM To: John Curran; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Niels ten Oever; Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>; Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva; Olga Cavalli; <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda for call September 13 1900 UTC Dear Anne Pls kindly read my comments. I think once we have developed draft Recommendations( s) either before approval by CCWG or after its approval before being considered approved by ICANN it may 7 would go through public comments . Consequently I do not support that this little group propose any PDP which may last up to 6 or even more than 6 years , like FOI of ccNSO which last 6 years . Before we discussing that issue in the agenda, the issue must be reported to tg The CCWG PLENARY FOR DUISCUSSION . I will certainly object at that stage that once again GNS dominate the entire community with its " so-called *PDP which cooked by GNSO Regards Kavouss 2016-09-17 22:46 GMT+02:00 John Curran <jcurran(a)istaff.org<mailto:jcurran@istaff.org>>: Anne - I believe that we should (at a minimum) seek to improve ICANN’s policy development and implementation activities with respect to potential HR issues by: 1) Clearly defining what HR Convention(s) that will be considered applicable to its activities, 2) Provide a straightforward method for any party to raise a concern during the policy development process or during any ICANN consultation (to cover operational matters) that the intended policy or process would pose a threat to one or more human rights contained within the agreed list of HR Conventions, and 3) that raising such Human Right concern would in turn require that the final policy or process outcome be amended to directly acknowledge the raised concern and either include appropriate changes or provide a clear explanation of why the concern is either not relevant or is deemed a reasonable balance in light of ICANN’s overall obligations. If we do that (and do it well) we will have created an FOI-HR framework that it is both useful and yet operating fully within ICANN’s existing mission and mandate. /John p.s. my views alone - apologies to the electrons who labored to carry these thoughts all over the planet. On Sep 13, 2016, at 7:08 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Another practical consideration to review as FOI-HR is being developed: Would registries get extra points in the application process for making Human Rights Public Interest Commitments? Does an HR PIC complaint and ICANN’s subsequent determination of whether such HR PIC is being met by the registry put it in the content regulation business? I think Andrew pointed out on the call that it is a good idea to consider what we are trying to fix or promote. Does “respect” just mean “avoid adverse impact” or does it mean something more, e.g. “reward positive impact”. Shall we define the word “respect” in the FOI-HR? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 3:29 PM To: 'Kavouss Arasteh' Cc: ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda for call September 13 1900 UTC Dear Kavouss, I do not understand why you object to even discussing the issue of how FOI – HR relates to the Policy Development Process and GAC Policy Advice. If everyone is content to know that the FOI-HR will not apply to any Registry contract prior to development of Consensus Policy via a PDP or Expedited PDP, then that is quite alright with me. I am just pointing out that this is the path we are heading down. I think it would be smarter to engage stakeholders broadly and earlier – that is, in the form of GAC public policy advice and GNSO guidance (at the very least) in the drafting of the Framework itself. If we do so early on, then a “go-ahead” from the Chartering Organizations will be much easier to obtain later. As was pointed out by someone else on the call, we also need to make a recommendation – in the Framework – as to whether or not it may serve as a basis for a Request for Reconsideration or an IRP, which is certainly implied by the drafting in the new By-Laws. Again, I think it would be wiser to obtain GAC public policy advice and GNSO Guidance on this point now rather than later (when we think our work is done.) The following tasks are set out for our group: <image003.png> Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image004.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 1:48 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Niels ten Oever; ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda for call September 13 1900 UTC Dear Anne What you are saying may be right but this is outside our terms of reference. We have to establish the draft Recommendation(s) on the FOI relating to Human Rights and submit that to CCWG .Once adopted by CCWG then it will be probably put into public comments After the Recommendation(s) are finalized it7 they will be submitted to ICANN and thus it is up to ICANN to deal with that. Should ICANN decides that parts of all of that should be subject to PDP,it is ICANN decision and policy. Consequently, we should not be involved in the necessity or otherwise of developing PDP or recommending the need or otherwise of PDP. Should there be any doubt on that the chair should raise this point at the next meeting of CCWG Plenary. In view of the above, I strongly disagree with the inclusion of the item in the agenda as an agreed item Regards Kavouss 2016-09-13 22:18 GMT+02:00 Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>: Having said that Human Rights FOI could be introduced in the Subsequent Procedures PDP currently underway but might happen faster via its own Expedited PDP. This is only important if you want to bind registries. Please note that ICANN applicable law in this regard does not automatically apply to registries. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _______________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> -----Original Message----- From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 1:08 PM To: 'Niels ten Oever'; ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda for call September 13 1900 UTC Dear all, I hope that everyone understands that no provision re Human Rights can be added to a Registry Contract unless developed via Consensus Policy. Consensus Policy is a strictly defined term. (These are the only provisions which may be added unilaterally by ICANN.) Further, the ONLY method of developing Consensus Policy is pursuant to either a full Policy Development Process or else an Expedited Policy Development Process. So if you think you can adopt a Ruggie principle of ICANN addressing Human Rights in all its business relationships, you must also apply the Ruggie 18 b principle and understand that NO REGISTRY IS BOUND BY ANYTHING OTHER THAN CONSENSUS POLICY (and applicable law of the jurisdiction where the Registry is based.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725> fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _______________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> -----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 11:15 PM To: ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda for call September 13 1900 UTC Dear all, Please find underneath the proposed agenda for the call for September 13 1900 UTC. Please let me know if you would like to add, amend or remove any agenda points. 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. Final Discussion on: Summary on what was agreed and discussed on human rights during WS1 (attached and here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rwpw9aSAqboRO2_rNkjMVJPOmYwmdr5B1_M_aNM… ) 3. General Discussion & Q&A on Ruggie Principles and Ruggie FIFA report (attached and here: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.… https://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/79736/1789834/version /1/file/Ruggie_humanrightsFIFA_reportApril2016.pdf<https://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/79736/1789834/version/1/file/R…> ) 4. Discussion on: Analysis of Ruggie Principles for ICANN – Short presentation by Drafting Volunteershttps://docs.google.com/document/d/10XMIVosuEfgmXwr7SQjeNLKI8r_hd… 5. AOB Looking forward to the call. Best, Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org<http://www.article19.org/> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

Proposed Agenda for call September 13 1900 UTC
by Niels ten Oever Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 19, 2016

Dear all, Please find underneath the proposed agenda for the call for September 13 1900 UTC. Please let me know if you would like to add, amend or remove any agenda points. 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. Final Discussion on: Summary on what was agreed and discussed on human rights during WS1 (attached and here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rwpw9aSAqboRO2_rNkjMVJPOmYwmdr5B1_M_aNM… ) 3. General Discussion & Q&A on Ruggie Principles and Ruggie FIFA report (attached and here: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.… https://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/79736/1789834/version /1/file/Ruggie_humanrightsFIFA_reportApril2016.pdf ) 4. Discussion on: Analysis of Ruggie Principles for ICANN – Short presentation by Drafting Volunteers https://docs.google.com/document/d/10XMIVosuEfgmXwr7SQjeNLKI8r_hdONrJNV2ih7… 5. AOB Looking forward to the call. 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

6 9