Niels, I wanted to highlight this statement in the document: “Pursuant to the UNGPs, ICANN can voluntarily express its commitment to respect human rights, and identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how it addresses adverse human rights impacts through the process of human rights due diligence. In doing so, ICANN can prioritize areas of focus, such as its operations, internal procedures, and/or new policy, consistent with its Mission. In addition, operational level grievance mechanisms should be established to address human rights grievances. ICANN’s commitment to apply the UNGPs to its operations and policies in the foregoing manner is consistent with the letter and the spirit of the human rights provision of the bylaws as well as with the UNGPs.” And “As stated above, application of the human rights Core Value does not create any legal obligation of ICANN outside its Mission. It is assumed that it is implicit in ICANN’s Mission that it will operate within the bounds of applicable laws; furthermore, it is also assumed that ICANN has the discretion to voluntarily make commitments to respect human rights and to carry out human rights due diligence.” The text of the human rights core value states: “This Core Value does not create, and shall not be interpreted to create, any obligation on ICANN outside its Mission, or beyond obligations found in applicable law. This Core Value does not obligate ICANN to enforce its human rights obligations, or the human rights obligations of other parties, against other parties.” The text quoted above from the draft FoI seems to be proposing a that because ICANN would be “voluntarily” identifying, preventing, mitigating and accounting for adverse human rights impacts, that these commitments would not be inconsistent with the text of the new bylaws and that it would differ from an “obligation”. Is that correct? Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 11:07 AM To: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: [Ws2-hr] New Draft Text for FoI Dear all, I hope this e-mail finds you well. To ensure nothing of our constructive discussions is getting lost, and to help us continue to be very concrete, I would like to share with you the attached document, that can also be found here (page 2 onwards): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVnkBYUOsA2Q/edit<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emqmzyB9_0vm6oKxhIWZ47L7lxcFKUBHVnkBYUOsA2Q/edit> The document aims to represent a sedimentation of our discussion and suggest a way forward, by providing potential text for the Framework of Interpretation. Partially inspired by the reaction of John Ruggie when I brought up our concerns with him. I hope this proves to be useful, and I am more than happy to discuss it with you all on the list and the call, and of course work on suggestions and comments in the Google Doc. 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