On Sep 5, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> wrote:

...
b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are
directly linked to their operations, products or services by their
business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.

Interesting predicament. If one imagines the potential for an update to one of

the IANA registries that in turn poses an impact to human rights – i.e. following

the specific guidance from the appropriate community that is contracting with

ICANN/PTI for IANA services would result in an HR impact, then the above

proposed responsibility (to prevent or mitigate...) would suggest that ICANN

should to do otherwise.

Note that the event of ICANN/PTI acting contrary to the clear direction of one of

the respective communities (names, numbers, protocols) with regard to IANA

registry updates could easily precipitate a crisis that results in the end of ICANN,

and thus should probably be avoided...

ICANN (including PTI) needs to place the highest priority upon fidelity to the

outcomes of the multi-stakeholder process, since its existence is predicated

(particularly in a post-NTIA contract environment) upon the presupposition

of the validity of that process. This is also the reason why I noted that there

is a significant difference between application of HR principles within the multi-

stakeholder policy development process when compared to later on during the

policy implementation phases.

/John

Disclaimer: my views alone. Feel free to use, share, or discard as desired.