I agree with Greg that our sub-team’s role does not reach to consideration of an ethical code of ICANN. Our job, as I see it, is a narrow one - to develop a framework of interpretation relating to a bylaw (Article 1.2(b)(viii)) that basically says that ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights as required by applicable law – and that provision will apply only so long as such respect is within ICANN’s mission and core values. The bylaw, in part, specifically provides: “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.” David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:35 AM To: Schweighofer Erich Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC I agree in part and disagree in part: On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Schweighofer Erich <erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at<mailto:erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at>> wrote: ... The more I read about Ruggie Principles I am convinced that they do not really fit for ICANN. I tend to agree with this. The hard legal core of ICANN's obligations is much less, even depending on the various jurisdictions. I'm not sure what this means. If it means that there are Ruggie obligations that don't fit ICANN, then I agree. Otherwise, this needs further explanation. ICANN is inclusive, e.g. also flexible. Again not sure what this means. If this means that ICANN must be inclusive of, e.g., New gTLD applicants and ccTLD operators (governments and otherwise), whether or not they comply with human rights provision, then I agree. ICANN can't be a human rights filter for the Internet. If this means something else, it needs further explanation. WS2-HR should focus on the freedom of communication worldwide, subject to usual safeguard clauses + the international human rights treaty obligations. This sounds suspiciously like "cherry-picking" (i.e., picking and choosing among human rights obligation), and I am firmly opposed to that. Also while human rights treaty obligations are relevant (and we need to determine what we are referring to as such) they do not bind ICANN, except to the extent they have been adopted and codified by applicable laws. The Bylaw doesn't take us further than that. In an ethical code of ICANN, we can go much further, and here we can re-use Ruggie to some extent. An "ethical code of ICANN" is far, far beyond the mandate and scope of this subgroup. Our task is to provide a framework for interpreting the Bylaw. It is good to work on an idealistic world but we have to realistic, too. That I can agree with. Best, Erich Schweighofer Greg -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Niels ten Oever Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. September 2016 11:18 An: ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Proposed agenda meeting September 27 - 19:00 UTC Dear all, Please find underneath and attached the proposed agenda for the call of September 27, 19:00 UTC. Comments and suggestions are welcome. 1. Administrivia Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc 2. Analysis of Ruggie Principles for ICANN - discussion on UN Guiding Principles 15, 13, 19 3. AOB Best, Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org<http://www.article19.org> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr