Agree with this text. The main point I am interested in here is that if gTLD policy is impacted, then Human Rights assessments and policy must be developed in accordance with the Multi—Stakeholder Model. ICANN is not in fact a business. Businesses work top-down. Registry operators run businesses and registrars run businesses. These business entities can distinguish themselves in the marketplace by adopting the United Nations Guiding Principles for businesses. Certainly no one could object to ICANN electing to assess its internal operations using Ruggie – and that I think is the item that is being clarified in response to the comments filed by the governments. ICANN the organization is free to use UNGP, but when it comes to gTLD policy, that has to be developed “bottom-up”. While I may personally be in favor of certain Ruggie Principles applying to ICANN’s conduct within the organization, and especially Principle 18 as previously noted, I would not be able to support an approach which seeks to impose Ruggie Principles by causing ICANN to require registries and registrars to comply with them. This approach is definitely not consistent with the Multi-Stakeholder Model. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D315B4.A5EB8A90] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:49 AM To: <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: <ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] Suggested revision from drafting team David, My condolence as your text is unacceptable to me and in no way ,even considered the comments made by three GAC members . The text is totally refused and categorically rejected as not only does not address those comment but it totally biased. Regards Kavouss On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:25 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear all, may I kindly request clarification this addition tries to address the comments made by three Governments during the public comment period? - I thought that the intention of this exercise was to find some compromise text bridging the gap to the positions expressed in the mentioned governmental inputs. Could you please help? Regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: McAuley, David via Ws2-hr <ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> Datum: 15. August 2017 um 18:09:50 MESZ An: ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> Betreff: [Ws2-hr] Suggested revision from drafting team Hi Niels, The drafting team (Anne, Tatiana, Greg, Matthew, and I) suggests this text below. However, note that Anne has not yet given final approval of this text and thus may differ. Given the desire to get text out for consideration and the earliness of the hour in Anne’s time-zone we felt we should send the text now, subject to that one notation. SUGGESTED TEXT: "3.1 When examining its internal operations, ICANN the organization could, if it so chooses, consider using a mechanism to assess its impact on Human Rights. Whether and, if so, what mechanism to choose is solely up to ICANN the organization to decide. No such assessment should directly or indirectly impact gTLD policy formation or execution without being fully consistent with existing processes and protocols. The results of the organization's analysis should be reflected in its annual reporting" Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager, Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154<tel:703-948-4154> _______________________________________________ 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.