Hi Paul, Thanks for your response. Reply inline: On 03/13/2017 03:32 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:

Dear Niels

I note the SSAC report. I worry again that its recommendation language calling for a Human Rights Impact Assessment,

Microsoft Word - SAC0XX_SSAC_Input_to_CCWG-Acc_WS2_Human_Rights_v1.1-CLEAN.docx

"A Human Rights Impact Assessment4 is a process for systematically identifying, predicting and responding to the potential human rights impacts of business operations, policies, or agreements."

has the possible consequence of inadvertantly trying to impose human rights tests on agreements in the IANA function, especially as they may apply to agreements (written or explicit) with ccTLD operators. As I have said consistently in this process, this could be extremely damaging on the operations and global acceptance of the IANA function. Hence my concern about certain sections of the Ruggie Principles being applied to ICANN - ICANN does not have the luxury of choosing which parts of the world it may or may not serve.

First and foremost, the first right of humans we need to protect is having access to an Internet that is global and operates 7x24.

Isn't that exactly what the SSAC letter says in the first paragraph (as well as the Core Value, and the Framework of Interpretation) ? Best, Niels

Best

Paul

On 3/13/17 9:12 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:

...

Dear all,

Please find attached the letter we received from SSAC.

All the best,

Niels

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Input from SSAC to the WG on Human Rights Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 03:12:11 +0100 From: Patrik Fältström <paf@netnod.se> To: Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org> CC: SSAC <ssac@icann.org>, Human Rights <cc-humanrights@icann.org>

Niels,

As chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, one of the chartering organizations of the CCWG on Accountability, we would like to submit the attached comments as fruit for thought for the discussions.

Best,

Patrik Fältström Chair of the SSAC

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

Agree with Paul. Seeing as most of the world does not adhere to UNHRC policy to begin with, this is a non-starter. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. Consulting Scholar http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ -----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Twomey Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 9:43 AM To: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Fwd: Input from SSAC to the WG on Human Rights Yes Neil. But think of how does ICANN do a Human Rights Impact Assessment on an agreement with a new ccTLD operator in a non-democratic (or even democratic) country? ICANN is not the UN Human Rights Council. It would be explosive. On 3/13/17 10:38 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your response. Reply inline:

On 03/13/2017 03:32 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:

...

Dear Niels

I note the SSAC report. I worry again that its recommendation language calling for a Human Rights Impact Assessment,

Microsoft Word - SAC0XX_SSAC_Input_to_CCWG-Acc_WS2_Human_Rights_v1.1-CLEAN.docx

"A Human Rights Impact Assessment4 is a process for systematically identifying, predicting and responding to the potential human rights impacts of business operations, policies, or agreements."

has the possible consequence of inadvertantly trying to impose human rights tests on agreements in the IANA function, especially as they may apply to agreements (written or explicit) with ccTLD operators. As I have said consistently in this process, this could be extremely damaging on the operations and global acceptance of the IANA function. Hence my concern about certain sections of the Ruggie Principles being applied to ICANN - ICANN does not have the luxury of choosing which parts of the world it may or may not serve.

First and foremost, the first right of humans we need to protect is having access to an Internet that is global and operates 7x24.

Isn't that exactly what the SSAC letter says in the first paragraph (as well as the Core Value, and the Framework of Interpretation) ?

Best,

Niels

...

Best

Paul

On 3/13/17 9:12 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:

...

Dear all,

Please find attached the letter we received from SSAC.

All the best,

Niels

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Input from SSAC to the WG on Human Rights Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 03:12:11 +0100 From: Patrik Fältström <paf@netnod.se> To: Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org> CC: SSAC <ssac@icann.org>, Human Rights <cc-humanrights@icann.org>

Niels,

As chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, one of the chartering organizations of the CCWG on Accountability, we would like to submit the attached comments as fruit for thought for the discussions.

Best,

Patrik Fältström Chair of the SSAC

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr -- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

Thank you Niels. I am planning to attend this session. I spoke with Patrik last night. His explanation was a bit different in terms of the limited scope of ICANN's mission. Tatiana also heard this explanation and may have comment. However, Patrik emphasized that someone from SSAC would be present at the NCSG meeting on Human Rights mentioned to explain the SSAC letter and why it comes before an FOI being published by the CCWG-Accountability. 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: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 8:12 AM To: Paul Twomey Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Fwd: Input from SSAC to the WG on Human Rights Hi Paul, As far as I know ICANN does not have contracts with ccTLDs, right? In any case, I would like to invite everyone to a session of the CCWP HR * coming Wednesday March 15 at 17:00 (CEST) ** where both SSAC and an expert on Human Rights Impact Assessment from the Danish Institute for Human Rights will be present, so that might be an interesting venue to discuss. Best, Niels * Cross Community Working Party on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Right ** https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nmu/gnso-ncsg-icann-human-rights On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:43:14AM -0400, Paul Twomey wrote:

Yes Neil. But think of how does ICANN do a Human Rights Impact Assessment on an agreement with a new ccTLD operator in a non-democratic (or even democratic) country? ICANN is not the UN Human Rights Council. It would be explosive.

On 3/13/17 10:38 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:

...

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your response. Reply inline:

On 03/13/2017 03:32 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:

...

Dear Niels

I note the SSAC report. I worry again that its recommendation language calling for a Human Rights Impact Assessment,

Microsoft Word - SAC0XX_SSAC_Input_to_CCWG-Acc_WS2_Human_Rights_v1.1-CLEAN.docx

"A Human Rights Impact Assessment4 is a process for systematically identifying, predicting and responding to the potential human rights impacts of business operations, policies, or agreements."

has the possible consequence of inadvertantly trying to impose human rights tests on agreements in the IANA function, especially as they may apply to agreements (written or explicit) with ccTLD operators. As I have said consistently in this process, this could be extremely damaging on the operations and global acceptance of the IANA function. Hence my concern about certain sections of the Ruggie Principles being applied to ICANN - ICANN does not have the luxury of choosing which parts of the world it may or may not serve.

First and foremost, the first right of humans we need to protect is having access to an Internet that is global and operates 7x24.

Isn't that exactly what the SSAC letter says in the first paragraph (as well as the Core Value, and the Framework of Interpretation) ?

Best,

Niels

...

Best

Paul

On 3/13/17 9:12 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:

...

Dear all,

Please find attached the letter we received from SSAC.

All the best,

Niels

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Input from SSAC to the WG on Human Rights Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 03:12:11 +0100 From: Patrik Fältström <paf@netnod.se> To: Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org> CC: SSAC <ssac@icann.org>, Human Rights <cc-humanrights@icann.org>

Niels,

As chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, one of the chartering organizations of the CCWG on Accountability, we would like to submit the attached comments as fruit for thought for the discussions.

Best,

Patrik Fältström Chair of the SSAC

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr -- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 ________________________________ 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.

Hi Paul, That's surprising because the mail went to the list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/2017-March/thread.html As you can see in the considerations document this point has been carefully and extensively addressed in the Considerations document, and we also discussed this extensively on the list and on calls. But all you concerns and suggestions vis a vis that document are of course more than appreciated here on the list and on the upcoming call. Best, Niels On 03/14/2017 04:42 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:

Hi Neils

I did not receive your earlier email.

But yes ICANN does have a range of agreements with ccTLDs. About 86 of them.

See: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cctlds/cctlds-en

I have to say I am a bit shocked that you asked me this question. I think it is very important that this group needs to be expertly advised on the day to day operations of ICANN's core functions, or else we run the risk of putting forward a "theoretical" set of recommendations which when examined by the members of the SOs and ACs and/or the board will be rejected as putting existing operations at undue risk.

Paul

On 3/14/17 4:06 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

...

Thank you Niels. I am planning to attend this session. I spoke with Patrik last night. His explanation was a bit different in terms of the limited scope of ICANN's mission. Tatiana also heard this explanation and may have comment. However, Patrik emphasized that someone from SSAC would be present at the NCSG meeting on Human Rights mentioned to explain the SSAC letter and why it comes before an FOI being published by the CCWG-Accountability.

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: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 8:12 AM To: Paul Twomey Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Fwd: Input from SSAC to the WG on Human Rights

Hi Paul,

As far as I know ICANN does not have contracts with ccTLDs, right?

In any case, I would like to invite everyone to a session of the CCWP HR * coming Wednesday March 15 at 17:00 (CEST) ** where both SSAC and an expert on Human Rights Impact Assessment from the Danish Institute for Human Rights will be present, so that might be an interesting venue to discuss.

Best,

Niels

* Cross Community Working Party on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Right ** https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nmu/gnso-ncsg-icann-human-rights

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:43:14AM -0400, Paul Twomey wrote:

...

Yes Neil. But think of how does ICANN do a Human Rights Impact Assessment on an agreement with a new ccTLD operator in a non-democratic (or even democratic) country? ICANN is not the UN Human Rights Council. It would be explosive.

On 3/13/17 10:38 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:

...

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your response. Reply inline:

On 03/13/2017 03:32 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:

...

Dear Niels

I note the SSAC report. I worry again that its recommendation language calling for a Human Rights Impact Assessment,

Microsoft Word - SAC0XX_SSAC_Input_to_CCWG-Acc_WS2_Human_Rights_v1.1-CLEAN.docx

"A Human Rights Impact Assessment4 is a process for systematically identifying, predicting and responding to the potential human rights impacts of business operations, policies, or agreements."

has the possible consequence of inadvertantly trying to impose human rights tests on agreements in the IANA function, especially as they may apply to agreements (written or explicit) with ccTLD operators. As I have said consistently in this process, this could be extremely damaging on the operations and global acceptance of the IANA function. Hence my concern about certain sections of the Ruggie Principles being applied to ICANN - ICANN does not have the luxury of choosing which parts of the world it may or may not serve.

First and foremost, the first right of humans we need to protect is having access to an Internet that is global and operates 7x24.

Isn't that exactly what the SSAC letter says in the first paragraph (as well as the Core Value, and the Framework of Interpretation) ?

Best,

Niels

...

Best

Paul

On 3/13/17 9:12 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:

...

Dear all,

Please find attached the letter we received from SSAC.

All the best,

Niels

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Input from SSAC to the WG on Human Rights Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 03:12:11 +0100 From: Patrik Fältström <paf@netnod.se> To: Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org> CC: SSAC <ssac@icann.org>, Human Rights <cc-humanrights@icann.org>

Niels,

As chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, one of the chartering organizations of the CCWG on Accountability, we would like to submit the attached comments as fruit for thought for the discussions.

Best,

Patrik Fältström Chair of the SSAC

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr -- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr --

Niels ten Oever Head of Digital

Article 19 www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

________________________________

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.

-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

Respectfully, it seems that not only what the SSAC is suggesting is unworkable for lots of reasons, the recommendation itself also seems to be outside of the SSAC's remit. From their website: "The Security and Stability Advisory Committee advises the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems. This includes operational matters (e.g., matters pertaining to the correct and reliable operation of the root name system), administrative matters (e.g., matters pertaining to address allocation and Internet number assignment), and registration matters (e.g., matters pertaining to registry and registrar services such as WHOIS). SSAC engages in ongoing threat assessment and risk analysis of the Internet naming and address allocation services to assess where the principal threats to stability and security lie, and advises the ICANN community accordingly." We really need the SSAC to be the backstop on technical "don't break the Internet" issues. I'm sorry to see that they have allowed themselves to be dragged into this human rights discussion, which while important, is not going to "break the Internet" one way or another. The next time they tell us that we really shouldn't do something, just a little bit of the usual reverent deference, at least for me, will be missing. Best, Paul McGrady -----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 4:12 PM To: Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com> Cc: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Fwd: Input from SSAC to the WG on Human Rights Hi Paul, As far as I know ICANN does not have contracts with ccTLDs, right? In any case, I would like to invite everyone to a session of the CCWP HR * coming Wednesday March 15 at 17:00 (CEST) ** where both SSAC and an expert on Human Rights Impact Assessment from the Danish Institute for Human Rights will be present, so that might be an interesting venue to discuss. Best, Niels * Cross Community Working Party on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Right ** https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nmu/gnso-ncsg-icann-human-rights On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:43:14AM -0400, Paul Twomey wrote:

Yes Neil. But think of how does ICANN do a Human Rights Impact Assessment on an agreement with a new ccTLD operator in a non-democratic (or even democratic) country? ICANN is not the UN Human Rights Council. It would be explosive.

On 3/13/17 10:38 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:

...

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your response. Reply inline:

On 03/13/2017 03:32 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:

...

Dear Niels

I note the SSAC report. I worry again that its recommendation language calling for a Human Rights Impact Assessment,

Microsoft Word - SAC0XX_SSAC_Input_to_CCWG-Acc_WS2_Human_Rights_v1.1-CLEAN.docx

"A Human Rights Impact Assessment4 is a process for systematically identifying, predicting and responding to the potential human rights impacts of business operations, policies, or agreements."

has the possible consequence of inadvertantly trying to impose human rights tests on agreements in the IANA function, especially as they may apply to agreements (written or explicit) with ccTLD operators. As I have said consistently in this process, this could be extremely damaging on the operations and global acceptance of the IANA function. Hence my concern about certain sections of the Ruggie Principles being applied to ICANN - ICANN does not have the luxury of choosing which parts of the world it may or may not serve.

First and foremost, the first right of humans we need to protect is having access to an Internet that is global and operates 7x24.

Isn't that exactly what the SSAC letter says in the first paragraph (as well as the Core Value, and the Framework of Interpretation) ?

Best,

Niels

...

Best

Paul

On 3/13/17 9:12 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:

...

Dear all,

Please find attached the letter we received from SSAC.

All the best,

Niels

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Input from SSAC to the WG on Human Rights Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 03:12:11 +0100 From: Patrik Fältström <paf@netnod.se> To: Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org> CC: SSAC <ssac@icann.org>, Human Rights <cc-humanrights@icann.org>

Niels,

As chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, one of the chartering organizations of the CCWG on Accountability, we would like to submit the attached comments as fruit for thought for the discussions.

Best,

Patrik Fältström Chair of the SSAC

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr -- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

Hello, I am not sure i get Paul's point but i think the recommendation quoted suggests to evaluate possible impact before considering real-life implementation of HR in ICANN operations. I think it's a fair recommendation and resonates​ with my line of thought. Regards On 13 Mar 2017 15:33, "Paul Twomey" <paul.twomey@argopacific.com> wrote:

Dear Niels

I note the SSAC report. I worry again that its recommendation language calling for a Human Rights Impact Assessment,

"A Human Rights Impact Assessment4 is a process for systematically identifying, predicting and responding to the potential human rights impacts of business operations, policies, or agreements." has the possible consequence of inadvertantly trying to impose human rights tests on agreements in the IANA function, especially as they may apply to agreements (written or explicit) with ccTLD operators. As I have said consistently in this process, this could be extremely damaging on the operations and global acceptance of the IANA function. Hence my concern about certain sections of the Ruggie Principles being applied to ICANN - ICANN does not have the luxury of choosing which parts of the world it may or may not serve.

First and foremost, the first right of humans we need to protect is having access to an Internet that is global and operates 7x24.

Best

Paul

On 3/13/17 9:12 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:

Dear all,

Please find attached the letter we received from SSAC.

All the best,

Niels

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Input from SSAC to the WG on Human Rights Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 03:12:11 +0100 From: Patrik Fältström <paf@netnod.se> <paf@netnod.se> To: Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org> <niels@article19.org> CC: SSAC <ssac@icann.org> <ssac@icann.org>, Human Rights <cc-humanrights@icann.org> <cc-humanrights@icann.org>

Niels,

As chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, one of the chartering organizations of the CCWG on Accountability, we would like to submit the attached comments as fruit for thought for the discussions.

Best,

Patrik Fältström Chair of the SSAC

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing listWs2-hr@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 <+1%20310-279-2366> Aust M: +61 416 238 501 <+61%20416%20238%20501> www.argopacific.com

_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr