Thanks Samantha.  It seems the most important “takeaway” is:

The balancing test now requires that all of the commitments be met, while Core Values still are dependent upon situations and can be balanced amongst each other.

 You mention human trafficking.  What are the implications for ICANN being asked to award a registry contract in an application for a Top Level Domain .legalizesexslaves.

 

Are you advising there is no longer a “balancing” act when considering this application and ICANN must deny the award of the registry contract?  (Or are you saying that this would be beyond mission and scope (since ICANN is not a content regulator), and therefore there is no Commitment operating and no obligation to consider Human Rights?)

 

I ask this because the Ruggie principles we are examining would require ICANN to avoid adverse impact to Human Rights in all its business relationships.  Clearly the primary business relationship of ICANN is to enter into contracts awarding registries.

 

Thank you,

Anne

 

 

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

 

From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Karen Mulberry
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 10:19 AM
To: ws2-hr@icann.org
Subject: [Ws2-hr] FW: Proposed Agenda Call Sept 6 19:00 UTC

 

 

On behalf of ICANN Legal

 

Karen Mulberry

Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives

ICANN

 

 

 

From: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 11:01 AM
To: Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry@icann.org>
Subject: FW: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda Call Sept 6 19:00 UTC

 

Can you please provide this to the HR subgroup?

 

 

Dear HR-Subgroup members,

 

I understand that the question posed was "'What is the rationale for the addition of 'core values' to the ICANN bylaws, and what are its legal and non-legal implications in your opinion, especially for the human rights bylaw?”

 

The Core Values have historically been part of the ICANN Bylaws, introduced after the ICANN evolution and reform effort in 2002, https://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws/bylaws-15dec02-en.htm.  From 2002 through the Bylaws as they exist today, the Core Values remained unchanged, with the following as guidance for the application of Core Values: "These core values are deliberately expressed in very general terms, so that they may provide useful and relevant guidance in the broadest possible range of circumstances. Because they are not narrowly prescriptive, the specific way in which they apply, individually and collectively, to each new situation will necessarily depend on many factors that cannot be fully anticipated or enumerated; and because they are statements of principle rather than practice, situations will inevitably arise in which perfect fidelity to all eleven core values simultaneously is not possible. Any ICANN body making a recommendation or decision shall exercise its judgment to determine which core values are most relevant and how they apply to the specific circumstances of the case at hand, and to determine, if necessary, an appropriate and defensible balance among competing values.”

 

With the Bylaws drafted to implement WS1, the CCWG recommended the development of both Commitments as well as Core Values, for which the balancing test has changed.  Some of the items that were previously Core Values are now expressed as commitments.  The balancing test now requires that all of the commitments be met, while Core Values still are dependent upon situations and can be balanced amongst each other.

 

The inclusion of the Human Rights commitment as a Core Value, which was expressly required in Annex 6 of the WS1 report, assures that it is an item that is considered while ICANN is performing its Mission.  The implication of this is strong, particularly where the FOI considers how to guide the interpretation of this obligation.  Of course, there are already legal obligations that are tethered to human rights obligations (for example, observing laws against human trafficking) that ICANN is already following. 

 

Given the long-standing nature of the Core Values section of the ICANN Bylaws, this is a key tool in guiding ICANN’s operations. They are part of a near 15-year history of ICANN acting within its Mission.

 

If there are more specific questions that you have on this topic, please let us know. 

 

 

  

— 

Samantha Eisner

Deputy General Counsel, ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, California 90094

USA

Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631

 

 

 

 

On 9/6/16, 11:47 AM, "ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Niels ten Oever" <ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org on behalf of lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:

 

Dear Jorge,

 

The question has been forwarded to ICANN legal and we are awaiting a

response.

 

Best,

 

Niels

 

On 09/07/2016 03:22 AM, Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote:

Dear Niels

  

May I kindly request clarification on the status of our inquiry into the

(legal) effects that the HR commitment we are talking about is a "core

value"?

  

According to the new Bylaws "core values" are “guidance” (“should also

guide the decisions and actions of ICANN…”) and are subject to a

specific balancing and interpretation clause:

  

"(c) The Commitments and Core Values are intended to apply in the broadest

possible range of circumstances. The Commitments reflect ICANN’s

fundamental compact with the global Internet community and are intended to

apply consistently and comprehensively to ICANN’s 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 ICANN’s Mission."

  

I feel this is quite relevant for our discussions, as it sets the frame

of the effect of the new HR "core value".

  

Best and looking forward to your guidance and apologies if I have missed

any relevant message on this issue

  

Jorge

  

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Auftrag von Niels ten Oever

Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. September 2016 00:19

Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Proposed Agenda Call Sept 6 19:00 UTC

  

Dear all,

  

Please find underneath and attached the proposed agenda for our call of

Sept 6 19:00 UTC.

  

Also please find attached a rather advanced version of the document

mentioned under agenda point 2, the summary of the Human Rights work

under Workstream 1.

  

1. Administrivia

Roll call, absentees, SoIs, etc

2. Discussion on: the Summary on what was agreed and discussed on human

rights during WS1

3. Discussion on: Concerns on possible impacts of Human Rights bylaw and

FoI

4. Discussion on FoI draft document

5. AOB

  

ICANN staff informed me that they are working on providing more real

time collaboration methods, but currently they do not offer such

services. So until that time I am afraid we are stuck with Google Docs.

  

As always feel free to suggest addition or changes to the points above.

  

  

Best,

  

Niels

--

Niels ten Oever

Head of Digital

  

Article 19

  

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4

                    678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

 

--

Niels ten Oever

Head of Digital

 

Article 19

 

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4

                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

_______________________________________________

Ws2-hr mailing list

 



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.