- Ws2-hr - lists.icann.org

article on Human Rights in WS1
by Niels ten Oever June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

Hi all, (/me tips hat and subsequently takes off rapporteur hat) I just published an academic article about human rights in Work Stream 1. I thought it might be of interest for you. All comments, suggestions and discussion would be more than welcome! Twitter: https://twitter.com/nielstenoever/status/1007618894893285377 Journal: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/poi3.172 PDF: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/poi3.172 Best, Niels -- Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

1 0

Launch of HRIA model for registries
by Niels ten Oever Dec. 21, 2017

Dec. 21, 2017

Hi all, I hope many of you are preparing for a well-deserved holiday break. I would like to offer you a holiday present in the form of a Human Rights Impact Assessment model for Internet registries. https://www.article19.org/resources/assessing-human-rights-impacts-internet… This model has been developed by ARTICLE19 in collaboration with the Danish Institute for Human Rights and SIDN, the ccTLD for .nl. Of course all comments and suggestions based on the model are more than welcome. If you're a registry and interested in doing an HRIA, please also get in touch. Mayhaps this model can also help us in the discussion on how we can live up to the Human Right bylaw in the different SOs and ACs. If you're reading this timely, we're having a workshop about this topic in one hour (at 12:20 CET) at the IGF in room XXVI - E , you can find the link to the session here: http://sched.co/CTt7 All the 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

1 0

RFC 8280: Human Rights Protocol Considerations
by Greg Shatan Nov. 12, 2017

Nov. 12, 2017

Niels may be too busy or too modest to let you know about this, but I thought it was worth informing you of this extensive work that was just published by Niels and Corinne Cath as RFC 8280: Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) N. ten Oever Request for Comments: 8280 ARTICLE 19 Category: Informational C. Cath ISSN: 2070-1721 Oxford Internet Institute October 2017 Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations Abstract This document aims to propose guidelines for human rights considerations, similar to the work done on the guidelines for privacy considerations (RFC 6973 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6973>). The other parts of this document explain the background of the guidelines and how they were developed. This document is the first milestone in a longer-term research effort. It has been reviewed by the Human Rights Protocol Considerations (HRPC) Research Group and also by individuals from outside the research group.... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280

6 5

Invitation, follow-up and congratulations
by Niels ten Oever Oct. 28, 2017

Oct. 28, 2017

Dear all, I would like to congratulate all of you with the finalization of the second readings during the face to face meeting yesterday, so we can continue compiling the CCWG report. This means we're entering yet a new phase of our work. I mentioned yesterday during the plenary that it would be a missed opportunity to not bank on the experience and the knowledge available within our group. Therefore I would like to invite you all to discuss a draft for a possible implementation model for the Human Rights bylaw that has been developed by Vidushi Marda in the CCWP-HR. This model can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/138jl2HqwW6wK_jSsGMEGMz3F9suGa3jJWgI1HLu… this model will be presented and discussed on Sunday at 15:15 in Hall B, Sec. B/C (GNSO) in the CCWP-HR: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbIe/gnso-icann-human-rights-ccwp-hr Your expertise, experience and viewpoint would be very much appreciated so it can inform possible next steps for the human rights bylaw. Best, Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

2 2

Re: [Ws2-hr] [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch Oct. 11, 2017

Oct. 11, 2017

Dear all, Resending again in view of tomorrow’s discussions. Please see below my message from 29 September week where I give some additional context on the proposal circulated to the CCWG (see further below my Email from Sept. 28) intended to bridge the difference between the dissent and the HR-Subgroup proposal. I would very much appreciate a discussion on the specific text being proposed in a spirit of compromise. kind regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch Gesendet: Freitag, 29. September 2017 11:42 An: paul.twomey(a)argopacific.com; turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences Dear Paul, and dear all, Paul, thank you for your clarity. However, I feel that these concerns you mention and which you brought forward, if my recollection is right, during work stream 1 (now it seems ages ago…) have IMO been taken care by the adopted Bylaws themselves – a compromise proposal that we sturdily helped to pass at the end of work stream 1, accepting that such precautions were needed to address such general concerns. But now we are at the beginning of the end of work stream 2. The Bylaw that was passed as a result of the Marrakech agreements took care of such general caveats by, inter alia, the following measures: (1) it configures the HR clause as a “core value”; (2) the core value is just guiding; (3) it is subject to the core value balancing test; (4) core values yield to what is established in the commitments; (5) the core value has to be applied strictly within the Mission of ICANN; (6) the core value itself establishes that in applying the HR ICANN is bound only to what is required by “applicable law”, that it is bound by the Mission, that it cannot enforce HR obligations – for itself or for third parties; etc. Btw, I’m not sure how the potential actions you describe would fit into ICANNs narrow Mission. Here is the Core Value text again for the convenience of all: “Subject to the limitations set forth in Section 27.2, within the scope of its Mission and other Core Values, respecting internationally recognized human rights as required by applicable law. This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission, or beyond obligations found in applicable law. This Core Value does not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations, or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties.” The FoI and the Considerations document flesh out and further specify many of these belts and suspenders that "protect" against any overexpansion of the HR core value. It goes without saying that the text I proposed does not change any of the Bylaw provisions. And it fits well into the FoI (and considerations) document, which is only complemented with two sentences. As said before, there is no contradiction with the “considerations”, as those refer to the application of the UNGP to all of ICANN in general. In contrast, and taking into consideration the concerns expressed by some in the Subgroup, the text we propose only refers to ICANN “Organization” and not to SO/ACs. As to these two sentences that I have proposed, they make two things: · First, there is a mention, amongst the international instruments, of the UNGP: “The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are relevant for business organizations.” As I explained below this is a statement of fact that should not be problematic. The UNGP are an international instrument endorsed by the United Nations. As other declarations mentioned in the FoI, it is not as such a legally binding document, but it was unanimously endorsed in 2011 by the United Nations Human Rights Council through a formal resolution. ICANN has, as many have said here, business organization aspects – I may well accept to nuance it as Avri proposed (“not-profit business organization”, I think) – so it is a relevant instrument. · Then, the proposed text says that ICANN “the Organization” should consider the UNGP as a “useful guide”: “Insofar ICANN the Organization is concerned, it should consider, as a business, the UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a useful guide when applying the Human Rights Core Value.“ This text builds in additional safeguards to avoid any danger whatsoever of extension of the UNGP to the non-business elements of ICANN (SO/ACs) as there is specific mention that the UNGP would be relevant only for ICANN the Organization. In addition, the mention is constrained to having to “consider” the UNGP “as a useful guide” when applying the core value. Therefore, I would be thankful if we discussed the specific text proposals and, in a spirit of compromise, we made concrete proposals that would address specific and factual concerns arising from the proposed two sentences. After all this is a proposal. At the same time, as said, this is an intended common ground proposal that differs, by being significantly less ambitious, from the public comment proposals filed by the Governments of Switzerland, UK and Brazil – which have at various time been supported by a number of other countries and participants. Thanks all for your consideration and kind regards Jorge Von: Paul Twomey [mailto:paul.twomey@argopacific.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. September 2017 23:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences Thanks Jorge At this late stage let me be somewhat blunt to be clear. The sort of language in the Ruggie Principles which worry me is: 13. The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises: … (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. 15. In order to meet their responsibility to respect human rights, business enterprises should have in place policies and processes appropriate to their size and circumstances, including: (c) Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute. My concern is not to ensure that ICANN can continue to coordinate with all the relevant technical organizations around the world (many of which are government run) which enable the operate of the Domain Name System, the IP address allocation and the Protocol Parameter responsibilities of the IANA functions. Just to give one example, let us look at ccTLD operators. ICANN does have a range of agreements within around 86 ccTLD operators, (See: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cctlds/cctlds-en) I do not think we intend to establish wording which would result in dissident groups from various countries going to a US court arguing that ICANN is in breach of its bylaws by having an explicit or implied agreement with a ccTLD operator recognized as part of the IANA process, especially where the dissident group alleges that the ccTLD operator is breaching human rights by following its government’s instructions on registrations. You can think of several examples where this may happen. Having the sections above applying to ICANN (even where it operates as a business) would put at risk ICANN’s ability to be a global coordinator as per its mission. By definition, it has to be able to serve every ccTLD. Furthermore, any court or other group thinking that ICANN should under principle 15 take action to remediate the adverse human rights impact would have to consider ICANN breaking off links with that ccTLD. Which brings me back to my global coordinator challenge. I hope this helps Paul On 9/28/17 5:07 PM, Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Paul, I would appreciate your being more specific, and elaborating what wording in my proposal gives rise to such fears, and what is exactly which is so distinct from the prior FoI text. For your convenience, here is again the proposed change in red: “By committing to one or more of these international instruments, nation states are expected to embed human rights in their national legislation. The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are relevant for business organizations. Insofar ICANN the Organization is concerned, it should consider, as a business, the UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a useful guide when applying the Human Rights Core Value.“ Thanks for your help in understanding your position. Regards Jorge Von: Paul Twomey [mailto:paul.twomey@argopacific.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. September 2017 23:00 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences Dear Jorge I have to say that I agree with Greg on this. My interventions on the HR working group have consistently focused on the ability of ICANN to operate its IANA and other technical functions under policy and/or numerous agreements with numerous technical bodies (such as ccTLD operators, Root Zone operators etc) in support of a global, interoperable Internet. The wording you propose would in my view put this at risk - as I have point several times over the last years the Rugge Principles, especially as those principles which apply to supply chains and contractors, are well suited to a mining company which can decide whether or not to do business in certain circumstance in certain countries. ICANN does not have that luxury. It is charged with supporting a Global Internet and hence has to be able to deal with every relevant ccTLD operator, Root Zone Operator, RIR etc, many of which it has agreements. In that sense ICANN is not like a private company at all. Paul On 9/28/17 4:38 PM, Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Greg, dear all, The UNGP are an international instrument endorsed by the United Nations. As other declarations mentioned in the FoI, it is not as such a legally binding document, but it was unanimously endorsed in 2011 by the United Nations Human Rights Council through a formal resolution. Therefore, locating it under instruments makes sense. There is no contradiction with the “considerations”, as those refer to the application of the UNGP to all of ICANN in general. In contrast, and taking into consideration the concerns expressed by some in the Subgroup, the text we propose only refers to ICANN “Organization” and not to SO/ACs. This is a common ground proposal that differs, by being significantly less ambitious, from the public comment proposals filed by the Governments of Switzerland, UK and Brazil – which have at various time been supported by a number of other countries and participants. Therefore, I hope that the CCWG Plenary will work on a CCWG broader consensus text on this basis, giving consideration and being inclusive of at least a minimal part of the named public comment inputs. Kind regards Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. September 2017 22:12 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com><mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences Unfortunately, I cannot support this suggestion. First, this statement is partially redundant of and partially contradicts another section of the Report, under "Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw": With regards to the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, no consensus was reached as to their suitability for interpreting the Core Value. However with regard to the implementation of the Core Value certain aspects of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights could be considered as a useful guide in the process of applying the Human Rights Core Value. There are certain Guiding Principles that may not be suitable for ICANN and others that might be applicable, depending on the circumstances. However, it is beyond the scope of this document to provide a detailed analysis of the Guiding Principles and their application, or not, in particular situations. In any case, a conflict between any Guiding Principle and an ICANN Bylaw provision or Article of Incorporation must be resolved in favor of the Bylaw or Article. The use of the Guiding Principles as potential guidance has to be carefully considered by each SO and AC as well as ICANN the organization. The suggested language absolutely contradicts the conclusion that " With regards to the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, no consensus was reached as to their suitability for interpreting the Core Value. " This was carefully balanced language, in itself a compromise. Further the language goes on to indicate how the UNGP could be considered during implementation of the Bylaw. With the conclusion that no conThis section, for which no revision is suggested, states quite appropriately why the UNGP should be treated as it is in the report. Second, this is being inserted into the interpretation of the term "internationally recognized human rights " as stated in the Core Value. This is troublesome. The UNGP is not a human rights declaration, so it should not be mentioned here. Aside from covenants and declarations, this section of the FoI discusses only international law. So the UNGP does not belong here. Also, the proposal would drop this statement into the middle of a discussion of international human rights instruments (which apply to states, not to ICANN), completely disrupting the analysis. Unfortunately, we were not supplied with the entire text, which would have made this more clear. Here it is, without the suggested addition: There are a range of international human-rights declarations and covenants that could be relevant to ICANN’s Human Rights Core Value. However, none of these instruments has a direct application to ICANN, because they only create obligations for States. By committing to one or more of these international instruments, nation states are expected to embed human rights in their national legislation. The reference to “internationally recognized human rights” in the bylaw should not be read in isolation; rather it must be considered together with, and limited by, the reference “as required by applicable law.” As a consequence, under the Human Rights Core Value, international human rights instruments are not directly applicable to ICANN beyond what is provided for in applicable law. Rather, only those human rights that are “required by applicable law” will be relevant to ICANN. Furthermore, depending on the jurisdiction in which ICANN operates, the law applicable to its operations may vary and thus the human rights applicable to ICANN’s operations will vary as well. Nevertheless, ICANN understands that internationally recognised human rights, including those expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, can guide its decisions and actions. Finally, I will note my view that the Subgroup fully, fairly, comprehensively and inclusively considered all of the Public Comments and held numerous discussions on this very topic. As such, I think that without persuasive arguments on substance, sufficient to convince the Plenary to take a different view, there is no reason to change the Report. On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 8:21 AM, <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all, Further to my Email below, I would like to share with you the following proposal that would constitute in my view an acceptable outcome of the public consultation on the Framework of Interpretation, and build on the wording proposals made by Switzerland in its public comment input (see attached) and the exchanges had thereafter in the Subgroup. Specifically, I would like to propose that the following paragraph on page 6 (under “internationally recognized human rights”) be reworded as follows (changes in red): “By committing to one or more of these international instruments, nation states are expected to embed human rights in their national legislation. The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are relevant for business organizations. Insofar ICANN the Organization is concerned, it should consider, as a business, the UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a useful guide when applying the Human Rights Core Value.“ The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights (UNGP) are the universally accepted voluntary standard for business organizations. Therefore, we feel that it should be mentioned under the instruments regarding “internationally recognized human rights”. In order to avoid any extension of the UNGP to the non-business elements of ICANN (SO/ACs) there is specific mention that the UNGP would be relevant only for ICANN the Organization. In addition, the mention is constrained to having to “consider” the UNGP “as a useful guide” – which, in our view, eliminates any perceived danger of creating any obligation whatsoever through this mention. I hope that this compromise proposal may be positively considered by all of you. Please note that it is made only by me with the aim of arriving at a common ground and that it has not been possible to coordinate due to time constraints with the other participants joining the dissent. Best regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Gesendet: Montag, 25. September 2017 15:34 An: turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 Dear all, Regarding agenda point 8 and specifically the dissenting opinion attached to the Report from the Subgroup dealing with the Framework of Interpretation (FOI) of the Human Rights Core Value (see p. 2 of the attached document), which I have filed together with a number of colleagues, I would like to share some thoughts and a suggested path forward with the CCWG Plenary before the calls scheduled to discuss this. The main point of the dissent is, in my view, that we feel that the public comment period showed the existence of two schools of thought: some that favored maintaining the text sent to public comment “as is” (ALAC to a certain extent, and a number of different GNSO constituencies) and those (UK, BRZ, and CH) proposing some steps forward, especially in the recognition of the UN Guiding Principles (Ruggie Principles). However, again in our view, the discussions in the Subgroup did not yield a properly balanced result, which would have reflected at least some if not all of the positions and proposals made by the named Governments. This relates in particular, that the FOI text should make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most relevant voluntary international standard. In our view, the Subgroup did not undertake an inclusive enough effort to determine if a compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this position of the three governments. Therefore, I would like to suggest that the CCWG Plenary could decide that some additional efforts to reaching a broader consensus on this important issue should be made – a broader consensus that could be more inclusive of all views expressed during the public comment period. Hence, I would suggest that the CCWG decides that the Report together with the dissent are sent back to the Subgroup with the request that a broader consensus solution is quickly sought within the coming e.g. 2 weeks after the Plenary call. I hope this way to proceed may seem reasonable to you and obtain your support during the abovementioned call. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have and look forward to your feedback. For my part I’ll try hard to attend the Wednesday call, but I’m (physically) attending at the same time the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Hence, I would be very thankful if this issue could be discussed on the Thursday call instead if possible. Kind regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. September 2017 18:05 An: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 All, Please fins below and attached the agenda for the 27-28 September plenary. As noted in an earlier email the Co-Chairs do not believe the plenary can get through all of these materials in a single two hour session and that it is imperative we do so this week given the timing constraints we are working under. As such an additional 2 hour plenary session has been added 28 September 1900 UTC (the original plenary meeting scheduled for 27 September 1300 UTC still stands). Also please note that given the large volume of documents we will be including these in two separate emails to avoid size limit issues for participants. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or problems with the documents. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Agenda for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary of 27 and 28 September 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior 2. Review of Agenda 3. Administration 3.1. Review timeline. 3.2. Reminder of 27 October face to face in Abu Dhabi. 3.3. Reminder of High Interest sessions in Abu Dhabi 4. Legal Committee Update 4.1. Question sent to ICANN Legal on Ombudsman recommendation 8 regarding the independence of the proposed Ombuds Advisory Panel (questions sent directly to ICANN legal on approval of Co-chairs). 4.2. Transparency – at the 13 September meeting of the sub-group updated language for recommendations 2, 15 and 16 were considered. ICANN Legal advised that they would consider these and provide written feedback to the sub-group. 5. Point on Quorum (held over from last plenary) 6. Second Reading of the draft recommendations of the Diversity sub-group. * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Diversity-DrafRecommendations-20170927 (attached - same document as distributed to the 30 August plenary) 7. First reading of the final recommendations of the SOAC Accountability sub-group. * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-20170927 (attached) * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-RedLine-20170927 (attached) * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-AnalysisandResponsetoPublicComments-20170927 (attached) 8. First reading of the final recommendations of the Human Rights sub-group. * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRight-FinalReportWithAdditions-20170927 (attached) * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRights-PublicConsultation-May2017-Responses (attached) 9. First reading of the draft recommendation of the Ombuds sub-group (please note that the final report of the external review is provided as a separate file due to size issues) * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendations-20170927 (attached in second email) * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-ExternalReview-Final (attached in second email) 10. First reading of the draft recommendation of the Staff Accountability sub-group. * CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-20170927V1.6 (attached in second email) * CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-TrnasmissionLetter-20170927 (attached in second email) 11. AOB 12. Next Plenaries 12.1. Thursday 28 September 19:00UTC 12.2. Wednesday 4 October 0500 UTC (optional but please schedule) 12.3. Wednesday 11 October 1300 UTC (optional but please schedule) 12.4. Wednesday 18 October 1900UTC 13. Adjournment _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- 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> -- 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>

3 3

Re: [Ws2-hr] clarification re Human Right Subgroup work and FOI - Human Rights with "Considerations"
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Thomas et al, What I am trying to understand is the procedure involved with new language being proposed at the plenary level with no prior consideration of that language at the subgroup. I had made specific proposals to include certain Ruggie language at the subgroup level with specific reference to incorporating Ruggie Principle 18 into the language that is applicable to ICANN the organization. (In fact, I have been advocating reference to Ruggie 18(b) from the beginning of participating in WS2-Human Rights.) So if we are considering new language at the plenary, I want to throw in my own recommendation that we refer specifically to Ruggie Principle 18 as a compromise position. I do not understand this black and white FACE-OFF as to "Zero Ruggie" or " All Ruggie". David McCauley is quite right that not all Ruggie principles make sense for ICANN since it is not a typical "business" and its mission is limited, especially as to not interfering with content. Much of what is contained in Ruggie Principles seeks to reach "all business relationships" and would thus exert influence over content, i.e. Ruggie would no doubt require putting provisions in Registry Agreements and Registrar Agreements that change obligations of these contracted parties to exert influence over registrants regarding Human Rights principles. While this may be appropriate for a voluntary Public Interest Commitment on the part of a registry, it is certainly not appropriate as a “top-down” ICANN org policy. In the ICANN environment, following all Ruggie principles creates too broad a sweep by far. In addition, there is no other "business" that has used Ruggie that follows the multi-stakeholder bottom-up policy process, a process unique to ICANN. Mark Carvell got the WS2 drafting team on a call at one ICANN meeting with someone from the UN (with experience implementing Ruggie) and I specifically asked whether she had experience implementing Ruggie with an organization that operated on the bottom-up Multi-Stakeholder Model. Jorge Cancio was also in the room on this call and asked several questions. Her response was (and I paraphrase) "No, but ICANN is a quasi-governmental organization and has a lot of power to influence Human Rights going forward". So for anyone who feels that ICANN is a quasi-governmental organization, they will push ICANN the organization in this direction without remembering the applicable law limitation and the fact that ICANN is NOT A QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL organization and its policy development is not the top-down process followed by other non-profits. Certain Ruggie Principles may work well within the limited mission of ICANN, most notably Principle 18, shown below my signature. Others, as pointed out in a very thoughtful manner by David McCauley's post to the WS 2 HR list, are dangerous and would impose limits on content as well as increased difficulty in enforcing property rights (including Intellectual Property rights) which are not consistent with Human Rights. While I may strongly disagree with certain views that could be posted at second level domains, ICANN is not the place to try to regulate them. And I disagree with the proposition that there should be an absolute right to post anonymously on the Internet as advocated by Article 19. (Although I agree that monitoring “hate speech” is a very dangerous road to go down.) It seems to me the highest principle here is disclosure, in other words, “Consider the Source”. Regarding the Human Right to privacy, recently it was noted that the Russian government may have been the true force and money behind several Facebook ads attempting to influence U.S. elections. So now Facebook is cooperating to try to prevent that. Why? Because people should know the bias associated with statements when there is no "fact check" in place. There is also no "fact check" on content posted at second level domains and these are now “unlimited” in many respects. Shouldn't people know where these opinions are coming from even if it's not the Russian government? What if it's Breitbart? How should these concerns be balanced with the right to privacy of the individual? (Organizations can easily use individuals to post ads and advocate opinions. In addition, who decides whether an association of individuals who believe similarly would have no right to privacy?) Which second level domains were being used to influence US elections and do the registrants have a right to privacy for everything said on those domains as well? Does it also apply to everything they sell on the domain to raise money to place their Facebook ads? T-shirts? Coins? Hats? I would say, “Consider the Source” in all cases. And be concerned as to why the source does not want to disclose itself. Take that into account. Is it for nefarious purposes or is it for legitimate fear of unjust consequences – e.g. second level registrations at .gay? As an organization, ICANN should not overreact to Snowden and to unjust laws in "outlier" governments. Failure to balance privacy rights with other considerations related to policies that develop trust and confidence in the worldwide web will not only result in consumer harm, it could even throw elections. "Consider the Source" is the best adage for both opinions and products offered on the Internet. This does not mean that the Spanish government should be able to shut down .cat, in fact it means the opposite. Governments who stand for free speech and privacy (and the legal systems established by those governments) should be protecting and enforcing those rights. If the “Considerations” document is now open to rewriting at the plenary level, then shouldn't we be considering other alternative proposals that were rejected by the drafting team? The most important Ruggie Principle for faithfulness to the ICANN bottom-up Multi-Stakeholder model appears below my signature, that is Ruggie Principle 18. As this discussion is being developed further in the plenary, please keep in mind that Ruggie calls for a Grievance Procedure and that the Core Value itself contemplates both a Request for Reconsideration and an Independent Review Panel process in relation to Human Rights claims. 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@01D33B7D.87188C00] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 Ruggie Principle 18. In order to gauge human rights risks, business enterprises should identify and assess any actual or potential adverse human rights impacts with which they may be involved either through their own activities or as a result of their business relationships. This process should: (a) Draw on internal and/or independent external human rights expertise; (b) Involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate to the size of the business enterprise and the nature and context of the operation. Hi, On 29-Sep-17 19:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > So what was everyone on the plenary CCWG- ACCT call yesterday > referring to when they objected to the "compromise text" that was submitted to the CCWG list without having gone through the usual procedures in the subgroup? It seems to me that once an issue is described as having no consensus in a subgroup and there is a declaration that none is reachable, the next step is to take the question to the plenary for plenary discussion. Seems to me this is especially the case when a minority view is attached to a proposed recommendation. This is not the first time a knotty issue has been brought to the plenary or the first time a subgroup was given the opportunity to reconsider a subgroup decision that was not accepted at the plenary level. avri _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr(a)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.

8 7

Re: [Ws2-hr] [CCWG-ACCT] clarification re Human Right Subgroup work and FOI - Human Rights with "Considerations"
by Schweighofer Erich Oct. 4, 2017

Oct. 4, 2017

Well written, Milton. My full support! Erich Von: Mueller, Milton L<mailto:milton@gatech.edu> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. Oktober 2017 16:28 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>; ws2-hr(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-hr] clarification re Human Right Subgroup work and FOI - Human Rights with "Considerations" Anne Weighing in here, I see some confusion: Her response was (and I paraphrase) "No, but ICANN is a quasi-governmental organization and has a lot of power to influence Human Rights going forward". So for anyone who feels that ICANN is a quasi-governmental organization, they will push ICANN the organization in this direction without remembering the applicable law limitation and the fact that ICANN is NOT A QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL organization and its policy development is not the top-down process followed by other non-profits. The key characteristic of ICANN is _not_ that it is a nonprofit and _not_ that it is a so-called "bottom up multistakeholder" organization. The ICANN feature of relevance to Human Rights is that ICANN makes global public policy regarding domain name registration and use. In this sense, it certainly is a "quasi-governmental" entity, indeed it was created to serve as a globalized substitute for territorial governments because of the Internet's inherent need for globally coordinated policy for the DNS to avoid fragmentation. We say quasi-governmental because it has exclusive control of an essential facility and thus its policies, like a state's, are effectively binding on most suppliers and (through them) users of the DNS. If ICANN makes public policy, then it follows that ICANN's _policies_ must respect (or not violate) recognized human rights, especially ones like freedom of expression and privacy that are related to Internet use. There is no inconsistency in the requirement that ICANN's substantive policies respect human rights and ICANN's limited mission; indeed, they are complementary. ICANN can only make policies in areas authorized by its mission and core values. HR concerns are an additional constraint on what ICANN can do when making policies; e.g. it cannot violate free expression or privacy rights. It is not an authorization to do additional things. Those of us who have objected to the use of the Ruggie principles have done so because Ruggie misses the target. We want ICANN's _policies_ to respect Human Rights, we do not think ICANN's internal operations will violate human rights. That is, we don't think ICANN has a propensity to use slave labor etc. The problem with Ruggie is that it focuses on commercial operations of businesses, not on policy makers. The Ruggie principles can serve as a massive diversion from the substantive policy issues that ICANN deals with, and if applied inappropriately it can also push ICANN the corporation to do things outside its mission. The fact that key players in this discussion still don't understand - or resist admitting - that ICANN is indeed a quasi-governmental policy maker causes me some concern. The whole HR discussion makes no sense unless you understand that. Dr. Milton Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology [IGP_logo_gold block_email sig]<http://www.internetgovernance.org/>

1 0

Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] clarification re Human Right Subgroup work and FOI - Human Rights with "Considerations"
by Dr. Tatiana Tropina Oct. 3, 2017

Oct. 3, 2017

sorry - for some reason sent this to the CCWG list only, forwarding to HR list as well for the record. Sorry for double posting. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-hr] clarification re Human Right Subgroup work and FOI - Human Rights with "Considerations" Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:38:12 +0100 From: Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina(a)mpicc.de> To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Can second every word Matt said here. Cheers, Tanya On 03/10/17 12:47, Matthew Shears wrote: > > As Anne, I would like to know both the procedure and justification for > "new language being proposed at the plenary level with no prior > consideration of that language at the subgroup"? > > I also do not understand why we are characterizing the positions as > "Zero Ruggie" or " All Ruggie". As Anne notes, "David McCauley is > quite right that not all Ruggie principles make sense for ICANN since > it is not a typical "business" and its mission is limited, especially > as to not interfering with content. Much of what is contained in > Ruggie Principles seeks to reach "all business relationships" and > would thus exert influence over content, i.e. Ruggie would no doubt > require putting provisions in Registry Agreements and Registrar > Agreements that change obligations of these contracted parties to > exert influence over registrants regarding Human Rights principles. > ... In the ICANN environment, following all Ruggie principles creates > too broad a sweep by far." These points were made in the sub-group > discussions and on the lists on numerous occasions. And the work of > the sub-group is not Zero Ruggie - this is a mis-characterization. > > I also do not believe that it is appropriate to rewrite the > “Considerations” document is at the plenary level. The > considerations document as it stands - and agreed by the sub group - > should provide all that is needed in terms of references to Ruggie. > > Matthew > > On 02/10/2017 20:54, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >> >> Thomas et al, >> >> What I am trying to understand is the procedure involved with new >> language being proposed at the plenary level with no prior >> consideration of that language at the subgroup. I had made specific >> proposals to include certain Ruggie language at the subgroup level >> with specific reference to incorporating Ruggie Principle 18 into the >> language that is applicable to ICANN the organization. (In fact, I >> have been advocating reference to Ruggie 18(b) from the beginning of >> participating in WS2-Human Rights.) So if we are considering new >> language at the plenary, I want to throw in my own recommendation >> that we refer specifically to Ruggie Principle 18 as a compromise >> position. >> >> >> >> I do not understand this black and white FACE-OFF as to "Zero Ruggie" >> or " All Ruggie". David McCauley is quite right that not all Ruggie >> principles make sense for ICANN since it is not a typical "business" >> and its mission is limited, especially as to not interfering with >> content. Much of what is contained in Ruggie Principles seeks to >> reach "all business relationships" and would thus exert influence >> over content, i.e. Ruggie would no doubt require putting provisions >> in Registry Agreements and Registrar Agreements that change >> obligations of these contracted parties to exert influence over >> registrants regarding Human Rights principles. While this may be >> appropriate for a voluntary Public Interest Commitment on the part of >> a registry, it is certainly not appropriate as a “top-down” ICANN org >> policy. In the ICANN environment, following all Ruggie principles >> creates too broad a sweep by far. In addition, there is no other >> "business" that has used Ruggie that follows the multi-stakeholder >> bottom-up policy process, a process unique to ICANN. >> >> >> >> Mark Carvell got the WS2 drafting team on a call at one ICANN meeting >> with someone from the UN (with experience implementing Ruggie) and I >> specifically asked whether she had experience implementing Ruggie >> with an organization that operated on the bottom-up Multi-Stakeholder >> Model. Jorge Cancio was also in the room on this call and asked >> several questions. Her response was (and I paraphrase) "No, but >> ICANN is a quasi-governmental organization and has a lot of power to >> influence Human Rights going forward". So for anyone who feels that >> ICANN is a quasi-governmental organization, they will push ICANN the >> organization in this direction without remembering the applicable law >> limitation and the fact that ICANN is NOT A QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL >> organization and its policy development is not the top-down process >> followed by other non-profits. >> >> >> >> Certain Ruggie Principles may work well within the limited mission of >> ICANN, most notably Principle 18, shown below my signature. Others, >> as pointed out in a very thoughtful manner by David McCauley's post >> to the WS 2 HR list, are dangerous and would impose limits on content >> as well as increased difficulty in enforcing property rights >> (including Intellectual Property rights) which are not consistent >> with Human Rights. While I may strongly disagree with certain >> views that could be posted at second level domains, ICANN is not the >> place to try to regulate them. And I disagree with the proposition >> that there should be an absolute right to post anonymously on the >> Internet as advocated by Article 19. (Although I agree that >> monitoring “hate speech” is a very dangerous road to go down.) It >> seems to me the highest principle here is disclosure, in other words, >> “Consider the Source”. >> >> >> >> Regarding the Human Right to privacy, recently it was noted that the >> Russian government may have been the true force and money behind >> several Facebook ads attempting to influence U.S. elections. So now >> Facebook is cooperating to try to prevent that. Why? Because people >> should know the bias associated with statements when there is no >> "fact check" in place. There is also no "fact check" on content >> posted at second level domains and these are now “unlimited” in many >> respects. Shouldn't people know where these opinions are coming >> from even if it's not the Russian government? What if it's >> Breitbart? How should these concerns be balanced with the right to >> privacy of the individual? (Organizations can easily use individuals >> to post ads and advocate opinions. In addition, who decides whether >> an association of individuals who believe similarly would have no >> right to privacy?) Which second level domains were being used to >> influence US elections and do the registrants have a right to privacy >> for everything said on those domains as well? Does it also apply to >> everything they sell on the domain to raise money to place their >> Facebook ads? T-shirts? Coins? Hats? I would say, “Consider the >> Source” in all cases. And be concerned as to why the source does >> not want to disclose itself. Take that into account. Is it for >> nefarious purposes or is it for legitimate fear of unjust >> consequences – e.g. second level registrations at .gay? >> >> >> >> As an organization, ICANN should not overreact to Snowden and to >> unjust laws in "outlier" governments. Failure to balance privacy >> rights with other considerations related to policies that develop >> trust and confidence in the worldwide web will not only result in >> consumer harm, it could even throw elections. "Consider the >> Source" is the best adage for both opinions and products offered on >> the Internet. This does not mean that the Spanish government should >> be able to shut down .cat, in fact it means the opposite. >> Governments who stand for free speech and privacy (and the legal >> systems established by those governments) should be protecting and >> enforcing those rights. >> >> >> >> If the “Considerations” document is now open to rewriting at the >> plenary level, then shouldn't we be considering other alternative >> proposals that were rejected by the drafting team? The most >> important Ruggie Principle for faithfulness to the ICANN bottom-up >> Multi-Stakeholder model appears below my signature, that is Ruggie >> Principle 18. As this discussion is being developed further in the >> plenary, please keep in mind that Ruggie calls for a Grievance >> Procedure and that the Core Value itself contemplates both a Request >> for Reconsideration and an Independent Review Panel process in >> relation to Human Rights claims. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> Ruggie Principle 18. >> >> In order to gauge human rights risks, business enterprises should >> identify >> >> and assess any actual or potential adverse human rights impacts with >> >> which they may be involved either through their own activities or as a >> >> result of their business relationships. This process should: >> >> (a) >> >> Draw on internal and/or independent external human rights >> >> expertise; >> >> (b) >> >> Involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups >> >> and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate to the size of the >> >> business enterprise and the nature and context of the operation. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On 29-Sep-17 19:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: >> >> > So what was everyone on the plenary CCWG- ACCT call yesterday >> >> > referring to when they objected to the "compromise text" that was >> submitted to the CCWG list without having gone through the usual >> procedures in the subgroup? >> >> >> >> It seems to me that once an issue is described as having no consensus >> in a subgroup and there is a declaration that none is reachable, the >> next step is to take the question to the plenary for plenary discussion. >> >> Seems to me this is especially the case when a minority view is >> attached to a proposed recommendation. >> >> >> >> This is not the first time a knotty issue has been brought to the >> plenary or the first time a subgroup was given the opportunity to >> reconsider a subgroup decision that was not accepted at the plenary >> level. >> >> >> >> avri >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Ws2-hr mailing list >> >> Ws2-hr(a)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 >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr > > -- > > > Matthew Shears > matthew(a)intpolicy.com > +447712472987 > Skype:mshears > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

WG: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch Oct. 3, 2017

Oct. 3, 2017

Dear all, See below my message from last week where I give some additional context on the proposal circulated to the CCWG (see further below my Email from Sept. 28) intended to bridge the difference between the dissent and the HR-Subgroup proposal. I would very much appreciate a discussion on the specific text being proposed in a spirit if compromise. kind regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 29. September 2017 um 11:42:03 MESZ An: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, paul.twomey(a)argopacific.com <paul.twomey(a)argopacific.com>, turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences Dear Paul, and dear all, Paul, thank you for your clarity. However, I feel that these concerns you mention and which you brought forward, if my recollection is right, during work stream 1 (now it seems ages ago…) have IMO been taken care by the adopted Bylaws themselves – a compromise proposal that we sturdily helped to pass at the end of work stream 1, accepting that such precautions were needed to address such general concerns. But now we are at the beginning of the end of work stream 2. The Bylaw that was passed as a result of the Marrakech agreements took care of such general caveats by, inter alia, the following measures: (1) it configures the HR clause as a “core value”; (2) the core value is just guiding; (3) it is subject to the core value balancing test; (4) core values yield to what is established in the commitments; (5) the core value has to be applied strictly within the Mission of ICANN; (6) the core value itself establishes that in applying the HR ICANN is bound only to what is required by “applicable law”, that it is bound by the Mission, that it cannot enforce HR obligations – for itself or for third parties; etc. Btw, I’m not sure how the potential actions you describe would fit into ICANNs narrow Mission. Here is the Core Value text again for the convenience of all: “Subject to the limitations set forth in Section 27.2, within the scope of its Mission and other Core Values, respecting internationally recognized human rightsas required by applicable law. This Core Valuedoes not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission, orbeyond obligations found in applicable law. This Core Valuedoes not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations, or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties.” The FoI and the Considerations document flesh out and further specify many of these belts and suspenders that "protect" against any overexpansion of the HR core value. It goes without saying that the text I proposed does not change any of the Bylaw provisions. And it fits well into the FoI (and considerations) document, which is only complemented with two sentences. As said before, there is no contradiction with the “considerations”, as those refer to the application of the UNGP toall of ICANN in general. In contrast, and taking into consideration the concerns expressed by some in the Subgroup, the text we propose only refers to ICANN “Organization” and not to SO/ACs. As to these two sentences that I have proposed, they make two things: · First, there is a mention, amongst the international instruments, of the UNGP: “The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are relevant for business organizations.” As I explained below this is a statement of fact that should not be problematic. The UNGP are an international instrument endorsed by the United Nations. As other declarations mentioned in the FoI, it is not as such a legally binding document, but it was unanimously endorsed in 2011 by the United Nations Human Rights Council through a formal resolution. ICANN has, as many have said here, business organization aspects – I may well accept to nuance it as Avri proposed (“not-profit business organization”, I think) – so it is a relevant instrument. · Then, the proposed text says that ICANN “the Organization” should consider the UNGP as a “useful guide”: “Insofar ICANN the Organization is concerned, it should consider, as a business, the UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a useful guide when applying the Human Rights Core Value.“ This text builds in additional safeguards to avoid any danger whatsoever of extension of the UNGP to the non-business elements of ICANN (SO/ACs) as there is specific mention that the UNGP would be relevant only for ICANN the Organization. In addition, the mention is constrained to having to “consider” the UNGP “as a useful guide” when applying the core value. Therefore, I would be thankful if we discussed the specific text proposals and, in a spirit of compromise, we made concrete proposals that would address specific and factual concerns arising from the proposed two sentences. After all this is a proposal. At the same time, as said, this is an intended common ground proposal that differs, by being significantly less ambitious, from the public comment proposals filed by the Governments of Switzerland, UK and Brazil – which have at various time been supported by a number of other countries and participants. Thanks all for your consideration and kind regards Jorge Von: Paul Twomey [mailto:paul.twomey@argopacific.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. September 2017 23:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch>; turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences Thanks Jorge At this late stage let me be somewhat blunt to be clear. The sort of language in the Ruggie Principles which worry me is: 13. The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises: … (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. 15. In order to meet their responsibility to respect human rights, business enterprises should have in place policies and processes appropriate to their size and circumstances, including: (c) Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute. My concern is not to ensure that ICANN can continue to coordinate with all the relevant technical organizations around the world (many of which are government run) which enable the operate of the Domain Name System, the IP address allocation and the Protocol Parameter responsibilities of the IANA functions. Just to give one example, let us look at ccTLD operators. ICANN does have a range of agreements within around 86 ccTLD operators, (See: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cctlds/cctlds-en) I do not think we intend to establish wording which would result in dissident groups from various countries going to a US court arguing that ICANN is in breach of its bylaws by having an explicit or implied agreement with a ccTLD operator recognized as part of the IANA process, especially where the dissident group alleges that the ccTLD operator is breaching human rights by following its government’s instructions on registrations. You can think of several examples where this may happen. Having the sections above applying to ICANN (even where it operates as a business) would put at risk ICANN’s ability to be a global coordinator as per its mission. By definition, it has to be able to serve every ccTLD. Furthermore, any court or other group thinking that ICANN should under principle 15 take action to remediate the adverse human rights impact would have to consider ICANN breaking off links with that ccTLD. Which brings me back to my global coordinator challenge. I hope this helps Paul On 9/28/17 5:07 PM, Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Paul, I would appreciate your being more specific, and elaborating what wording in my proposal gives rise to such fears, and what is exactly which is so distinct from the prior FoI text. For your convenience, here is again the proposed change in red: “By committing to one or more of these international instruments, nation states are expected to embed human rights in their national legislation. The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are relevant for business organizations. Insofar ICANN the Organization is concerned, it should consider, as a business, the UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a useful guide when applying the Human Rights Core Value.“ Thanks for your help in understanding your position. Regards Jorge Von: Paul Twomey [mailto:paul.twomey@argopacific.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. September 2017 23:00 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences Dear Jorge I have to say that I agree with Greg on this. My interventions on the HR working group have consistently focused on the ability of ICANN to operate its IANA and other technical functions under policy and/or numerous agreements with numerous technical bodies (such as ccTLD operators, Root Zone operators etc) in support of a global, interoperable Internet. The wording you propose would in my view put this at risk - as I have point several times over the last years the Rugge Principles, especially as those principles which apply to supply chains and contractors, are well suited to a mining company which can decide whether or not to do business in certain circumstance in certain countries. ICANN does not have that luxury. It is charged with supporting a Global Internet and hence has to be able to deal with every relevant ccTLD operator, Root Zone Operator, RIR etc, many of which it has agreements. In that sense ICANN is not like a private company at all. Paul On 9/28/17 4:38 PM, Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Greg, dear all, The UNGP are an international instrument endorsed by the United Nations. As other declarations mentioned in the FoI, it is not as such a legally binding document, but it was unanimously endorsed in 2011 by the United Nations Human Rights Council through a formal resolution. Therefore, locating it under instruments makes sense. There is no contradiction with the “considerations”, as those refer to the application of the UNGP toall of ICANN in general. In contrast, and taking into consideration the concerns expressed by some in the Subgroup, the text we proposeonly refers to ICANN “Organization” and not to SO/ACs. This is a common ground proposal that differs, by being significantly less ambitious, from the public comment proposals filed by the Governments of Switzerland, UK and Brazil – which have at various time been supported by a number of other countries and participants. Therefore, I hope that the CCWG Plenary will work on a CCWG broader consensus text on this basis, giving consideration and being inclusive of at least a minimal part of the named public comment inputs. Kind regards Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. September 2017 22:12 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com><mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences Unfortunately, I cannot support this suggestion. First, this statement is partially redundant of and partially contradicts another section of the Report, under "Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw": With regards to the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, no consensus was reached as to their suitability for interpreting the Core Value. However with regard to the implementation of the Core Value certain aspects of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights could be considered as a useful guide in the process of applying the Human Rights Core Value. There are certain Guiding Principles that may not be suitable for ICANN and others that might be applicable, depending on the circumstances. However, it is beyond the scope of this document to provide a detailed analysis of the Guiding Principles and their application, or not, in particular situations. In any case, a conflict between any Guiding Principle and an ICANN Bylaw provision or Article of Incorporation must be resolved in favor of the Bylaw or Article. The use of the Guiding Principles as potential guidance has to be carefully considered by each SO and AC as well as ICANN the organization. The suggested language absolutely contradicts the conclusion that " With regards to the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, no consensus was reached as to their suitability for interpreting the Core Value. " This was carefully balanced language, in itself a compromise. Further the language goes on to indicate how the UNGP could be considered during implementation of the Bylaw. With the conclusion that no conThis section, for which no revision is suggested, states quite appropriately why the UNGP should be treated as it is in the report. Second, this is being inserted into the interpretation of the term "internationally recognized human rights " as stated in the Core Value. This is troublesome. The UNGP is not a human rights declaration, so it should not be mentioned here. Aside from covenants and declarations, this section of the FoI discusses only international law. So the UNGP does not belong here. Also, the proposal would drop this statement into the middle of a discussion of international human rights instruments (which apply to states, not to ICANN), completely disrupting the analysis. Unfortunately, we were not supplied with the entire text, which would have made this more clear. Here it is, without the suggested addition: There are a range of international human-rights declarations and covenants that could be relevant to ICANN’s Human Rights Core Value. However, none of these instruments has a direct application to ICANN, because they only create obligations for States. By committing to one or more of these international instruments, nation states are expected to embed human rights in their national legislation. The reference to “internationally recognized human rights” in the bylaw should not be read in isolation; rather it must be considered together with, and limited by, the reference “as required by applicable law.” As a consequence, under the Human Rights Core Value, international human rights instruments are not directly applicable to ICANN beyond what is provided for in applicable law. Rather, only those human rights that are “required by applicable law” will be relevant to ICANN. Furthermore, depending on the jurisdiction in which ICANN operates, the law applicable to its operations may vary and thus the human rights applicable to ICANN’s operations will vary as well. Nevertheless, ICANN understands that internationally recognised human rights, including those expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, can guide its decisions and actions. Finally, I will note my view that the Subgroup fully, fairly, comprehensively and inclusively considered all of the Public Comments and held numerous discussions on this very topic. As such, I think that without persuasive arguments on substance, sufficient to convince the Plenary to take a different view, there is no reason to change the Report. On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 8:21 AM, <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all, Further to my Email below, I would like to share with you the following proposal that would constitute in my view an acceptable outcome of the public consultation on the Framework of Interpretation, and build on the wording proposals made by Switzerland in its public comment input (see attached) and the exchanges had thereafter in the Subgroup. Specifically, I would like to propose that the following paragraph on page 6 (under “internationally recognized human rights”) be reworded as follows (changes in red): “By committing to one or more of these international instruments, nation states are expected to embed human rights in their national legislation. The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights are relevant for business organizations. Insofar ICANN the Organization is concerned, it should consider, as a business, the UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights as a useful guide when applying the Human Rights Core Value.“ The UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights (UNGP) are the universally accepted voluntary standard for business organizations. Therefore, we feel that it should be mentioned under the instruments regarding “internationally recognized human rights”. In order to avoid any extension of the UNGP to the non-business elements of ICANN (SO/ACs) there is specific mention that the UNGP would be relevant only for ICANN the Organization. In addition, the mention is constrained to having to “consider” the UNGP “as a useful guide” – which, in our view, eliminates any perceived danger of creating any obligation whatsoever through this mention. I hope that this compromise proposal may be positively considered by all of you. Please note that it is made only by me with the aim of arriving at a common ground and that it has not been possible to coordinate due to time constraints with the other participants joining the dissent. Best regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>]Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Gesendet: Montag, 25. September 2017 15:34 An: turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 Dear all, Regardingagenda point 8 and specifically the dissenting opinion attached to the Report from the Subgroup dealing with the Framework of Interpretation (FOI) of the Human Rights Core Value (see p. 2 of the attached document), which I have filed together with a number of colleagues, I would like to share some thoughts and a suggested path forward with the CCWG Plenary before the calls scheduled to discuss this. The main point of the dissent is, in my view, that we feel that the public comment period showed the existence of two schools of thought: some that favored maintaining the text sent to public comment “as is” (ALAC to a certain extent, and a number of different GNSO constituencies) and those (UK, BRZ, and CH) proposing some steps forward, especially in the recognition of the UN Guiding Principles (Ruggie Principles). However, again in our view, the discussions in the Subgroup did not yield a properly balanced result, which would have reflected at least some if not all of the positions and proposals made by the named Governments. This relates in particular,that the FOI text should make stronger reference to the UN Guiding Principles as the most relevant voluntary international standard. In our view, the Subgroup did not undertake an inclusive enough effort to determine if a compromise text could be formulated that would accommodate this position of the three governments. Therefore, I would like tosuggest that the CCWG Plenary could decide that some additional efforts to reaching a broader consensus on this important issue should be made – a broader consensus that could be more inclusive of all views expressed during the public comment period. Hence, I wouldsuggest that the CCWG decides that the Report together with the dissent are sent back to the Subgroup with the request that a broader consensus solution is quickly sought within the coming e.g. 2 weeks after the Plenary call. I hope this way to proceed may seem reasonable to you and obtain your support during the abovementioned call. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have and look forward to your feedback. For my part I’ll try hard to attend the Wednesday call, but I’m (physically) attending at the same timethe UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Hence, I would be very thankful if this issue could be discussed on the Thursday call instead if possible. Kind regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]Im Auftrag von Bernard Turcotte Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. September 2017 18:05 An: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 All, Please fins below and attached the agenda for the 27-28 September plenary. As noted in an earlier email the Co-Chairs do not believe the plenary can get through all of these materials in a single two hour session and that it is imperative we do so this week given the timing constraints we are working under. As such an additional 2 hour plenary session has been added 28 September 1900 UTC (the original plenary meeting scheduled for 27 September 1300 UTC still stands). Also please note that given the large volume of documents we will be including these in two separate emails to avoid size limit issues for participants. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or problems with the documents. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Agenda for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary of 27 and 28 September 1. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior 2. Review of Agenda 3. Administration 3.1. Review timeline. 3.2. Reminder of 27 October face to face in Abu Dhabi. 3.3. Reminder of High Interest sessions in Abu Dhabi 4. Legal Committee Update 4.1. Question sent to ICANN Legal on Ombudsman recommendation 8 regarding the independence of the proposed Ombuds Advisory Panel (questions sent directly to ICANN legal on approval of Co-chairs). 4.2. Transparency – at the 13 September meeting of the sub-group updated language for recommendations 2, 15 and 16 were considered. ICANN Legal advised that they would consider these and provide written feedback to the sub-group. 5. Point on Quorum (held over from last plenary) 6. Second Reading of the draft recommendations of the Diversity sub-group. * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Diversity-DrafRecommendations-20170927 (attached - same document as distributed to the 30 August plenary) 7. First reading of the final recommendations of the SOAC Accountability sub-group. * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-20170927 (attached) * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-FinalReport-RedLine-20170927 (attached) * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-SOACAcct-AnalysisandResponsetoPublicComments-20170927 (attached) 8. First reading of the final recommendations of the Human Rights sub-group. * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRight-FinalReportWithAdditions-20170927 (attached) * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-HumanRights-PublicConsultation-May2017-Responses (attached) 9. First reading of the draft recommendation of the Ombuds sub-group (please note that the final report of the external review is provided as a separate file due to size issues) * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-DrafRecommendations-20170927 (attached in second email) * CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Ombudsman-ExternalReview-Final (attached in second email) 10. First reading of the draft recommendation of the Staff Accountability sub-group. * CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-20170927V1.6 (attached in second email) * CCWG-Accountability-StaffAcct-DraftReport-TrnasmissionLetter-20170927 (attached in second email) 11. AOB 12. Next Plenaries 12.1. Thursday 28 September 19:00UTC 12.2. Wednesday 4 October 0500 UTC (optional but please schedule) 12.3. Wednesday 11 October 1300 UTC (optional but please schedule) 12.4. Wednesday 18 October 1900UTC 13. Adjournment _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- 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> -- 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>

1 0

clarification
by Niels ten Oever Oct. 2, 2017

Oct. 2, 2017

Dear all, I would like to clarify that the text I presented in yesterdays plenary was the text we've reached consensus on in this subgroup, without any alteration. I've attached the text as it was shared with the plenary by Bernard on September 21st. Best, Niels

4 5