Please see the note from Seun Ojedeji below. Karen Mulberry Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives ICANN From: <acct-staff-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 6:37 PM To: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [Acct-Staff] Fwd: Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights? Hello Staff, Could you kindly help send this to the HR list. Kindly also change my status to participant as I like to be able to post to the list occasionally. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Date: 7 Sep 2016 07:59 Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights? To: "Rudolph Daniel" <rudi.daniel@gmail.com> Cc: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, <ws2-hr@icann.org>
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 2:17 AM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
What Anne has expressed here is pretty close to my understanding of a workable pathway.
'Any Human Rights FOI that does not EXPLICITLY recognize the MS Model of policy development is inadequate.' end quote
SO: Wouldn't it then be accurate to say the only application of HR within ICANN would be to ensure there is adequate accountability mechanism in place within ICANN processes (including policy implementation). In order words, HR within ICANN is not a set of separate terms to be respected but "respect of HR" would be achieved indirectly through adequately following other rules and procedures guiding various processes within ICANN.
Regards
That is also my view currently.
Is it not possible that the GAC or some other policy development process may, when viewed under the lens of a 'respect for for human rights' p d p, is rejected or modified to bring it in line with a concensus position? rd
On Sep 6, 2016 7:18 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Thanks David. This is exactly why we cannot use the Ruggie definition of ³respect². Again, it is difficult for me to see how Ruggie applies since those principles are developed in relation to a corporation that operates ³top down² rather than ³bottom up² and were not developed in relation to the unique MS policy development framework that applies to ICANN.
The Ruggie definition of ³respect² would require ICANN action in the context of evaluating and minimizing Human Rights adverse impact in all its business relationships.
ICANN¹s primary business relationships are registry contracts. This includes award and renewal of gTLD contracts (As a side note, and also noting my bias as an IP lawyer in favor of the protection of trademark and copyright, the UDRP and URS processes are not ³business relationships² of ICANN. ) These are dispute resolution processes developed through a bottom-up MS approach again a concept that is completely foreign to businesses for which Ruggie principles were developed.
So from my point of view, Ruggie is inapposite and we need to ³start from scratch² so that the FOI being developed recognizes the existing ICANN MS Model and the existing policy development process and functions of policy advice coming from the GAC and ALAC and other entities in addition to the GNSO. This is definitely a ³balancing act² of Core Values for the Community and the Board. Any Human Rights FOI that does not EXPLICITLY recognize the MS Model of policy development is inadequate.
I would therefore suggest a preamble to the FOI along the following lines:
PREAMBLE TO HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK OF INTERPRETATION
³WHEREAS the application of internationally-recognized Human Rights principles in the context of ICANN¹s mission and scope requires policy development processes within the ICANN Community and
WHEREAS, the application of these principles to ICANN¹s activities may require a balancing of ICANN¹s Core Values as outlined in the By-Laws at Subparagraph ____(c ) (REPEAT text previously referenced by Jorge Cancion and pasted below)
NOW THEREFORE, the CCWG- ACCT recommends the following Framework of Interpretation in relation to the application of the new Human Rights By-Law adopted by the Board on ___________ (date) to ICANN¹s scope and mission.²
Separately, I personally believe a Human Rights Objection process may be appropriate, thereby taking ICANN itself out of the content regulation business in relation to gTLD applications and awards, but this of course would be a matter for policy development.
Anne
"(c) The Commitments and Core Values are intended to apply in the broadest possible range of circumstances. The Commitments reflect ICANN¹s fundamental compact with the global Internet community and are intended to apply consistently and comprehensively to ICANN¹s activities. The specific way in which Core Values are applied, individually and collectively, to any given situation may depend on many factors that cannot be fully anticipated or enumerated. Situations may arise in which perfect fidelity to all Core Values simultaneously is not possible. Accordingly, in any situation where one Core Value must be balanced with another, potentially competing Core Value, the result of the balancing must serve a policy developed through the bottom-up multistakeholder process or otherwise best serve ICANN¹s Mission."
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McAuley, David Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 3:34 PM To: Dr. Tatiana Tropina; ws2-hr@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?
Interesting discussion among thoughtful folks, in which I find myself with Greg and Tanya.
Work Stream One, in my opinion/recollection, never intended for the FoI team to throw open the doors and see what we could come up with. I recall a great deal of concern over the notion of an expansive HR commitment and don¹t think we would have reached closure if the HR provision would have been a broad one. I think Tanya captured that correctly.
As I read it, the bylaw that we are interpreting creates the FoI sub-team charter¹ (Section 27.2) as an effort containing ³limitations² rather than an invitation to expand the bylaw (Article 1.2(b)(viii) begins ³Subject to the limitations set forth in Section 27.2 ²).
Whatever FoI we come up with must be approved by the full CCWG, will be sent through the COs, and is subject to board approval some of the same drivers that helped shape the focus of the Bylaw we came up with in Section 1.2(b)(viii). And the FoI must be consistent with a bylaw that requires respect for HR within the scope of ICANN¹s narrow and unique mission.
David
David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 <tel:703-948-4154>
From:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Tatiana Tropina Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:38 PM To: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?
Dear Daniel,
I would rather disagree with broadening the view that much.
First of all, there are other documents from CCWG than define the tasks of this group, than only the bylaw text. In particular, Annex 06 (p. 2) of the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations report, that was approved, says:
"Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities: - Develop an FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw" (underlined by me).
The drafters of the CCWG report could have been of course more specific and put the wording "FoI for the HR Bylaw" everywhere, but I think it actually never dawned on them that there will be a discussion on broadening the scope of the FoI that much. At least the wording of the Annex 6 (and Annex 12 about WS2) indicates that it's a FoI for bylaw and not for the whole human rights impact assessment (HRIA) within ICANN.
Secondly, even a mere interpretation of the bylaw will require a lot of analysis of what you refer to, but extending the work of this group to the whole HRIA is outside of our mandate I think. There was a report of the Cross-community working party for human rights (which is not the part of the work of this CCWG) prepared for the ICANN meeting in Dublin that actually showed that the full HRIA, though might be a desirable option, is a time- and resources-consuming process and might be recommended only in a long-term. We can of course consider recommending ICANN to carry out a HRIA as a part of the FoI, why not, but doing the whole assessment on our own, in this group, rather looks like an impossible task - both in terms of resources and mandate.
I think the work of this group should definitely focus on the bylaw interpretation at the moment, because we do have to agree on what the bylaw means first before we will make any further recommendations.
warm regards Tatiana
On 06/09/16 20:36, Daniel Appelman wrote:
I would take a broader view than the one Greg has just suggested. Nowhere in the Bylaw and the conditions upon which it would become effective does it say that the WS2 team¹s activities should be restricted to footnoting the Bylaw or prohibited from making recommendations on human rights-related policies. In fact, our mandate is to develop and recommend a ³framework of interpretation for human rights². This is much broader than providing ³a framework of interpretation for the Bylaw². We will not be doing our job unless we consider what human rights are impacted by ICANN and its relationships with third parties and then develop recommendations as to the scope of ICANN¹s obligations under the Bylaw to respect those human rights in engaging in those relationships.
Dan
Daniel Appelman Partner Montgomery & Hansen, LLP 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 250 Menlo Park, CA 94025 650.331.7014 <tel:650.331.7014> (direct) 650-245-8361 <tel:650-245-8361> (mobile) 650.331.7000 <tel:650.331.7000> (main) 650.331.7001 <tel:650.331.7001> (fax) www.mh-llp.com <http://www.mh-llp.com/>
This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail, and destroy all copies of the original message. To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication, unless expressly stated otherwise, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein.
From:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 11:13 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?
Whatever we do, we can't create gTLD policy. We can (and indeed must) provide guidance in how the Bylaw should be interpreted by those engaged in gTLD policy development. But the policy development process cannot take place here.
We also should not be creating procedural mechanisms for when a Human Rights impact evaluation is triggered. Nor should we even be the one to create or mandate a human rights impact evaluation. Again, we should provide guidance in how the Bylaw should be interpreted by those who might consider whether to create such mechanisms or evaluations, and those who create them.
We need to stick to our mandate, which is to provide a Framework of Interpretation for the Bylaw. To my mind, this essentially means "annotating" the Bylaw, with what amount to a series of footnotes, so that the language used will be used consistently by groups that come after this one.
Greg
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Protection of registrant data is certainly important. This was studied for quite a long time by the Expert Working Group on WhoIs and is now the subject of a GNSO Policy Development Process. As I understand it, the new framework for Directory Registry Services essentially proposes a ³need to know² threshold test. I think it would be naïve for this Workstream 2 group to hold that Human Rights (in the form of privacy and freedom of expression) were not considered by the EWG or won¹t be considered in the final outcome of the PDP. In fact, the activities of these groups with respect to registrant data have sought to balance two clearly listed Human Rights guidelines in the UDRP that is the privacy right and the rights of authors (i.e. intellectual property rights).
I don¹t think the work done in the FOI for Workstream 2 Human Rights is supposed to trump the policy work of the GNSO or the public policy advice of the GAC or the advice of the ALAC. Still not sure, however, how this Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights can be considered anything other than new gTLD policy when applied to ICANN¹s new gTLD activities, including, but not limited to,
1. Award of registry contracts
2. Contractual provisions required in registry (and by implication registrar) contracts.
3. Adjudication of Requests for Reconsideration
4. Adjudication of complaints filed with ICANN with respect to Spec 11 Public Interest Commitments
5. Possible revocation of gTLD contract awards in relation to registry operators using TLDs for Human Rights abuse purposes.
Separately, regarding, for example, UDRP and URS proceedings, these are not actually activities of ICANN. These are dispute resolution mechanisms that take place outside ICANN¹s operations and are less directly implicated in the Human Rights framework than the activities listed in 1 through 5 above. However, these are mechanisms developed through the ICANN Policy Development Process.
As a practical matter, it would seem that the best this WS2 team can do is establish a procedural mechanism for determining when a Human Rights Impact review is triggered and a process where the Community conducts such a Human Rights Impact review. This necessarily would have to correlate with Policy Development. In the end, the various policy advisory groups may well disagree as they provide advice to the Board and it is the Board which makes the final decision, even in the new Empowered Community model. The Board receives advice from many different sources. One such source is the European Commission, whose advice is one reason this new By-Law exists and one reason this group exists in WS2.
The only practical way forward from my point of view is for this group to define criteria as to when a Human Rights Impact evaluation is triggered and how it should be conducted within policy-making activities already going on in the Community. This would include the five items listed above if indeed we are to use such general language as is proposed in the FOI in relation to ³respect human rights² in a manner which requires ICANN to take action to eliminate or reduce adverse Human Rights impact in the business relationships and activities with which it is involved.
I can compare all this to the process in the U.S. which requires an Environmental Impact Statement as to various business activities. The criteria for a Human Rights Impact Statement might be a starting point. However, in developing such a Human Rights Impact evaluation, and as agreed in WS1, we cannot focus on just one or two or three of the relevant Human Rights. None of the Human Rights documents we refer to rank these rights in order of priority as far as I know. The rights of authors and indigenous peoples I represent are just as important as the rights of freedom of expression and privacy. In fact, author¹s rights (including the copyright rights which give the authors the exclusive right to make changes to their own works) may be equally important to condemning oppressive governmental action or exploitation of native culture for corporate or personal gain. (Why would registrant information be protected for sellers of fake Navajo jewelry?)
Again, by way of SOI disclosure, I represent the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and my firm represents the Navajo Nation for certain intellectual property matters. (We currently have no instructions from either with respect to participation in ICANN so my views are my own.) In ICANN¹s activities, it appears to me that a Human Rights Impact analysis is ALWAYS a question of balancing various Human Rights. Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:520.629.4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:520.879.4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2016 11:13 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig
Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?
Dear all, I agree with Paul that among the main questions for us to come up with a Frame of Interpretation of the Human Rights in the ICANN mission would be: * What substance we see in the phrase human rights inside ICANN Mission? * When, if ever, ICANN should give that substance (whatever it may be) effect? I can¹t say they are the only meaningful questions since there will be subsequent questions. But let¹s start with the first question: I think that to address it, we may begin by giving practical easy cases. The protection of the registrant data is one of the most obvious case of human right that falls in the ICANN mission. This may also affect the ICANN contract with registries/registrars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: +216 98 330 114 <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>
+216 52 385 114 <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Le 4 sept. 2016 à 18:24, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> a écrit :
Dear Farzaneh
Of course your questions are meaningful. Indeed, the ONLY two meaningful questions in this discussion are a) what substance we see in the phrase human rights? And b) When, if ever, ICANN should give that substance (whatever it may be) effect?
Your questions clearly go to the later of these two issues. Members of the group may disagree on the answers we reach, but you¹re asking questions that have real meaning whatever anyone may say to the contrary.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/>
From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of farzaneh badii Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2016 11:56 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?
Calling something "not meaningful" is very easy. But it does not devalue its merits, fortunately. Please provide a rationale for why the questions are not meaningful. I don't have to consult with the co-chairs to discuss the questions here. If the group feels that it is unnecessary to discuss these questions they can simply not respond, if they feel we should re-formulate them, then we can.
The questions are to clarify what we mean by ICANN should not become a content regulator. The discussions that can arise responding to the question and sub-questions which I have posted can lead us towards a more tangible understanding of what we mean when we say ICANN should not become a content regulator and should not go out of its scope and mission when upholding human rights.
Best
Farzaneh
On 4 September 2016 at 17:34, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote:
Dear All,
I do not understand the meaning and purpose of these questions.
Perhaps the author of the questions could consult other two co chairs and come up with meaningfull text.
We can not send out these questions at all
Reagrds
Kavouss
2016-09-04 14:25 GMT+02:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> >: > > Hi all, > > > > Sorry for sending out the questions late. I wanted to provide a gist of > what we discussed during our call and then provide the questions but > unfortunately, we still do not have the recording. Below are some > questions for the group to discuss: > > > > > > Considering ICANN's scope and mission, when should ICANN uphold human > rights? > > > > - In its consideration to enter into contracts with registries and > registrars? (for example, when they are considering a new gTLD > application) > > > > - During the contractual relationship with the registries and the > registrars by obligating the registries and registrars to enforce human > rights? > > > > > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > -- > > Farzaneh > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-hr mailing list > Ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr>
--
Farzaneh _______________________________________________ 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
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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
