Even “respect” has very broad implications. I am not against the word respect, but in the current draft FOI framework taken from Ruggie it is quite clear that ICANN would have an obligation to evaluate every gTLD application for Human Rights Impact and to include Human Rights obligations in its registry agreement which would require the same provisions to follow through into registrar agreements. I am not saying this is bad. I am saying “respect” is defined as such in the Ruggie principles. These principles require action in business relationships such as contracts. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2082F.E7DF9380] 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 Rudolph Daniel Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 3:31 PM To: Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights? Regarding : uphold v respect I am on the same page as Leon here. 'respect' is a vastly different thought process to 'uphold' within the context of consensus. I have had to correct myself of late to focus on respect, not uphold. Is there concensus on this within the WS2 group? RD On Sep 5, 2016 6:12 PM, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com>> wrote: Léon, Thank you for this reminder; indeed, it was about respecting Human Rights. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 5 sept. 2016 à 20:02, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> a écrit : Dear all, I am glad to see the discussion is vibrant in this subgroup. I have, however one point of clarification. I accept that my concern might be a consequence of my lack of knowledge in english but I feel that when we say “uphold” we are going a step further than the intended spirit of “respecting” human rights as concluded in our WS1 report. If that is in fact the case, I would encourage the subgroup to go back to the root of the discussion considering ICANN to respect rather than upholding human rights. I am happy to read comments and grateful for any corrections to any lack of knowledge I might be displaying. Best regards, León El 05/09/2016, a las 4:01 a.m., Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> escribió: Dear Mrs. Badii Thank you very much for clarifications Yes unfortunately I thought you were intervening as co-chair of accountability group for which I regret but your reaction was unfair, instead you should have clarified the matter immediately and those who gas always been against me used this opportunity and categorised my comment "Silly" Now the matter is clear and issue is closed Regards Arasteh Sent from my iPhone On 5 Sep 2016, at 10:53, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> wrote: I think there is a confusion that needs to be addressed here and hopefully it won't need clarification anymore. The SO/AC accountability sub-group is being mentioned here because Kavouss is confusing this group with SO/AC accountability subgroup. This confusion comes from the fact that I am one of the co-rapporteurs for that sub-group. That is a separate sub-group which focusses on SO/AC accountability. I am merely a participant in human rights sub-group. Which is this group! I sent the questions to this group because during the last week session I volunteered to send questions. Best Farzaneh On 5 Sep 2016 8:31 a.m., "Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Mr. Niels ten Oever Thank you very much for yr reactions I hope you have kindly recognized that: A) this issue can only be discussed at SubGroup established for FOI for Human Rights AND NOT IN THE SUBGROUP ON SO/AC ACCOUNTABILITY B) thank you for the list of the reference documents that you have made but please kindly study the complete list discussed at Human Rights Group chaired Mr, Leon Sanchez You would not a complete list there. If you , as the One of the Co-Chair of the Group proposed a selected list , I have no problem with that but 1) this issue must be discussed at your group and not accountability Group and 2) we MUST avoid repeating discussions that we have had. Under Mr. Sanchez Group during four or five months Tks Arasteh Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Sep 2016, at 05:58, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net<mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>> wrote:
Dear all,
Great to see the discussion developing here. If I look at the questions brought up by Farzane, structured by Paul (and confirmed by Tijani), I see some overlap with the questions that were brought up in the draft FoI we've been working on as Google Doc.
* What substance we see in the phrase human rights inside ICANN Mission?
For this question we had a preliminary answer, namely that we could understand the following documents as 'Internationally recognized human rights':
UDHR: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng ICCPR: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx ICESCR: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx ICERD: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx CEDAW: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CEDAW.aspx CRPD: http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml DRIPS: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/Pages/Declaration.aspx
This could help narrow down that part of the discussion.
When we look at the second question and clarification by John:
* When, if ever, ICANN should give that substance (whatever it may be) effect?
This might mean different things for:
- the ICANN community (SOs and ACs) - ICANN the organization - Contracted parties - policy development process
It might helps us to differentiate or list what the different relevant activities of these (or other) parts of the ICANN ecosystem and understand what (potential) human rights impacts they might have?
Just a suggestions.
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
Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto: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.
