I have some difficulty with 'could consider'......as there seems to be no intent....'should consider' , in my view ..goes some way towards a consensus, but puts the decision firmly into the hands of ICANN... Using the formation that follows...(?) rd On Aug 8, 2017 5:55 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's a redline.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:
Hi all,
Original text:
When examining its operations, ICANN the organization could also consider instruments such as HRIAs to assess their impact on Human Rights. However, this is up to ICANN the organization to develop and implement. The results of such HRIAs should be reflected in ICANN’s annual reporting.
Text proposed by me on the call:
When examining its operations, ICANN the organization could consider using a framework like the UNGPs as well as specific instruments such as HRIAs to assess its impact on Human Rights, and offer remediation. However, it is up to ICANN the organization to decide the most appropriate framework and instrument to do this. The results of ICANN the organization's analysis should be reflected in ICANN’s annual reporting.
I am greatly looking forward to the suggestion of the drafting team.
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 _______________________________________________ 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