Thanks for this Bastiaan, I think one thing we need is the staff report on the study requested by the Board in relation to the impact on ICANN of the FOI - HR. This would likely be a tool the Board will use to provide its own comments on the FOI-HR. I think the difficulty we have is that ICANN itself is not really a business. I believe that registries and businesses that use TLDs are the businesses involved. In this sense, one hopes that these businesses adopt positive Human Rights efforts, but the ultimate question is whether ICANN should be using its power over the Internet to require them, for example, to adopt Ruggie Principles. In this regard, we have all noted that ICANN is not a government and is not a state actor. Due to this fact and due to the language of the ByLaw, I think it is clear that this role in relation to businesses is beyond the scope of ICANN's Mission. It is simply not required by "applicable law" and it's clear that ICANN is not obligated beyond applicable law. Nevertheless, and given the government comments we received, it seems that ICANN could be in a position to provide encouragement to registry applicants who wish to adopt the Ruggie Prinicples as a Public Interest Commitment ("PIC"). It would also be worth discussing whether an application may get "extra points" , e.g. in Community Evaluation, for committing to implement the Ruggie Principles. These items would of course have to be the subject of further Policy-Making in accordance with the existing protocols for Policy Development as contemplated by the Annexes and underlined in IPC Public Comment. Bottom line: Given the language of the approved ByLaw and the fact that ICANN is not a state actor, adoption of Ruggie Principles should be considered in new gTLD policy development as the subject of a voluntary Public Interest Commitment by registries. Ways to encourage adoption of this particular PIC should be explored, including “extra points” and/or Applicant Support and/or Auction Proceeds grant. At that point, the public is free to favor businesses who adopt the Ruggie Principles, which is the current scenario in competitive markets worldwide. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Bastiaan Goslings [mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 12:53 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Bastiaan Goslings; Niels ten Oever; ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Agenda and documents for call at 19:00 UTC at July 18 Hi all, I was not able to join yesterday’s call after all, sorry for not letting staff know - With regard to the second comment from ALAC in the highlights doc on page 1: 'As a final consideration, the ALAC would like to ask the Subgroup to clarify the statement on ‘Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs)’ on page 8 of the Draft FoI: ‘HRIAs should not consider particular Human Rights in isolation since they are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated.’ How does this relate to the criterium that Human Rights are only to be respected by ICANN as required by applicable law, and if applicable law does not require this within a certain jurisdiction, that the particular Human Right is not relevant to ICANN?’ Maybe I need to offer some clarification myself here ;-) The concern I had when I wrote this, is the potential situation where particular ‘applicable law' within a jurisdiction does not require ICANN to respect a certain internationally recognized human right, while a HRIA would demonstrate that within its remit ICANN infringes on this ‘universal’ human right. How to deal with that situation? I do not have a concrete example, but I hope this makes sense. Thanks, Bastiaan

On 17 Jul 2017, at 22:55, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote:

Thanks Niels. I think the third box in the "Highlights" document is

meant to say "SSAC" rather than "ALAC". (The first two boxes are

ALAC.) Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>

_______________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

-----Original Message-----

From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On

Behalf Of Niels ten Oever

Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 7:12 AM

To: ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>

Subject: [Ws2-hr] Agenda and documents for call at 19:00 UTC at July

18

Dear all,

In preparation for our call tomorrow please find attached:

- the proposed agenda

- the highlights from the public comments (as prepared by ICANN staff)

- the PDF versions of the comments (some more coming up in a following

mail)

I am greatly looking forward to discuss the comments with you all in our call at 19 UTC tomorrow.

Best,

Niels

________________________________

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.

_______________________________________________

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.