Thanks for the catches, Rudolph. I think the singular ‘mechanism’ makes sense in that the reference is to UNGPs which here is meant to be reference a single body of work despite the plural-sounding name. I like your suggestion regarding ‘where it seems appropriate.’ And thank you for the catch on ‘framework.’ My take on what my suggestion would look like in light of your comment is this: 3.1 When examining its operations, ICANN the organization could consider using a mechanism like the UNGPs as well as specific instruments such as HRIAs to assess its impact on Human Rights. It could also consider, where it deems appropriate, voluntary remediation efforts. However, it is up to ICANN the organization to decide whether to do so, and if so how (i.e., choosing the most appropriate mechanism, instrument, or remediation effort). The results of ICANN the organization's analysis should be reflected in ICANN’s annual reporting. As for Anne’s comment on involving the SOs/ACs, I am unsure – I think this just refers to internal ICANN ops and SOs/ACs are dealt with elsewhere. But I welcome other views. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Rudolph Daniel [mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 2:23 PM To: McAuley, David <dmcauley@Verisign.com> Cc: <ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-hr] new text..... Suggested Text [renamed subject line] May I make the following observations on this latest text.... When examining its operations, ICANN the organization could consider using a mechanism ( why singular and not 'mechanisms'...if from past comments, if I comprehend,) like the UNGPs as well as specific instruments such as HRIAs to assess its impact on Human Rights. It could also consider, in appropriate cases, voluntary remediation efforts. (It could also consider, where it deems appropriate, voluntary remediation efforts (?) ) However, it is up to ICANN the organization to decide whether to do so, and if so how (i.e., choosing the most appropriate framework, ( think u mean mechanism not framework) instrument, ( singular? or plural?) or remediation effort. (again I think you mean 'efforts') The results of ICANN the organization's analysis should be reflected in ICANN’s annual reporting. .... On Aug 9, 2017 1:20 PM, "McAuley, David via Ws2-hr" <ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> wrote:
As part of the drafting team recruited yesterday during the call, I would like to suggest text to consider (BTW – I don’t think there is a separate “drafting team” email list for this discrete effort).
BACKGROUND:
Here is text as proposed by Niels prior to our call yesterday (the original text is in his email forwarded below):
3.1 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 suggested a different text on list yesterday but I have tweaked it in my latest suggested text below to take account of two points Kavouss made on list.
First, I use the word “mechanism” instead of “framework” and I add a reference to voluntary remediation, agreeing with Kavouss to attempt to address comments by several country reps to the group.
MY LATEST SUGGESTED TEXT:
3.1 When examining its operations, ICANN the organization could consider using a mechanism like the UNGPs as well as specific instruments such as HRIAs to assess its impact on Human Rights. It could also consider, in appropriate cases, voluntary remediation efforts. However, it is up to ICANN the organization to decide whether to do so, and if so how (i.e., choosing the most appropriate framework, instrument, or remediation effort). The results of ICANN the organization's analysis should be reflected in ICANN’s annual reporting.
Best regards, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 3:55 PM To: ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-hr] red line
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<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