I agree with Tijani's sentiments. However if for instance ICANN wants to consider the principle for their internal processes (as Anne seem to suggest in her recent mail) then I think that is fine so long as "where applicable" exists somewhere in the overall text. Cheers! Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 9, 2017 12:52 PM, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote:
Dear Anne and all,
I understand that we try to integrate the comments received in our text, but there are 2 main things that I believe important to take into considération:
1. The Ruggie Principles were discussed in length from the very beginning, and the decision inside the sub-group was not to use them for the main reason that they are for business entreprises and ICANN is not a business entreprise. Yes, I know Anne that we are speaking about the consideration document and not the FoI itself. But can you please tell me what will be the use of those « considerations »? They will accompany the FoI we are proposing and thus will be taken into consideration. The « UNGPs » are exactly the « Ruggie Principles ». Bringing them back on the table is not appropriate in my opinion. 2. I agree with Tatiana that it is not in our remit to tell ICANN the org whether it should offer remediation, which is related to implementation, not interpretation.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 <+216%2098%20330%20114> +216 52 385 114 <+216%2052%20385%20114> ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Le 8 août 2017 à 23:57, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> a écrit :
Hi Brett and Steve, First I want to note that the change being discussed relates to the “Considerations” document and not to the FOI itself.
I was quite vocal on today’s call about not imposing any particular tool on the PDP process and about the idea that if ICANN org wants to propose a Human Rights “framework”, the Board would need to present that idea to the SOs and ACs for PDP work. (Our Considerations doc already says this.) So several of us expressed the view that the use of the word “Framework” in connection with what ICANN Org can do regarding its own internal operations is not appropriate.
As later clarified by Niels, he was trying to accommodate public comment by the governments of the UK, Brazil, and Switzerland by talking about the availability of certain of the tools suggested in Ruggie to gauge IMPACT on the organization. This is a much narrower change which deals with assessment tools rather than frameworks for addressing Human Rights concerns. (I think there was no objection to deleting “for further remediation” from the proposed language.)
This is why I suggested the compromise of referring to “tools” (instead of “frameworks”) in the Considerations document and gave the specific example of Principle 18 of Ruggie as a possible assessment tool available to ICANN the organization.
Principle 18 provides as shown below. Principle 18(b) appears to me to be quite consistent with the Multi-Stakeholder Model and actually preferable to the use of an HRIA tool alone since the folks who conduct HRIAs are not used to the ICANN Model and are not used to balancing Core Values as ICANN is required to do by the ByLaw. Nor are they at all used to according each Human Right equal weight so I think Principle 18)b) is particularly useful in this exercise.
Concerning the use of the word “business relationships” in Principle 18, I think it would have to be clarified that we are not talking about Contracted Party business relationships. Any assessment of or changes to those contracts would have to be the subject of Consensus Policy developed via PDP.
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.
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese* Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ <image002.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 08, 2017 3:35 PM *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* ws2-hr@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] Redline and also excerpt from Considerations re ICANN.org <http://icann.org/> reviewing framework with SOs and ACs
Agree with Brett on this: we will not have consensus to impose any particular HR instrument on the policy development process in gNSO and ccNSO.
*From: *<ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Schaefer, Brett" < Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Date: *Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 4:50 PM *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Cc: *"ws2-hr@icann.org" <ws2-hr@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ws2-hr] Redline and also excerpt from Considerations re ICANN.org <http://icann.org/> reviewing framework with SOs and ACs
Granted, I have not been active lately, but the last I knew specific references to any HR instrument or the UNGPs had been deemed outside of consensus. How does this keep coming back into the text? ------------------------------ *BrettSchaefer*
*Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory AffairsMargaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy* The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org __________
On Aug 8, 2017, at 4:06 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote: Personally, I agree with Niels that if ICANN.org <http://icann.org/> decides by a vote of the Board of Directors to use Ruggie as an assessment tool and then presents those results to the SOs and ACs for further consideration in the policy development processes, that is fine. Don’t know whether the cost of such an assessment would create a budgetary issue. I also think we should be careful not to create possible liability or evidence that would be used to support action against the ICANN Board/organization.
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese* Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ <image001.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Sent:* Tuesday, August 08, 2017 1:01 PM *To:* ws2-hr@icann.org *Subject:* Redline and also excerpt from Considerations re ICANN.org <http://icann.org/> reviewing framework with SOs and ACs
In the Considerations document, we also have language which tries to protect the role of SOs and ACs as follows:
“When developing corporate or operational policies, and executing its operations, ICANN the organization should take the Human Rights Core Value into account. In order to do so ICANN the organization should propose a framework to the community, which should include multistakeholder involvement in its development, and regular review.”
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese* Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ <image004.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
<image005.png>
------------------------------
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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr