New subject: When should ICANN uphold human rights?

Sept. 7, 2016

      What Anne has expressed here is pretty close to my understanding of a
workable pathway.

'Any Human Rights FOI that does not EXPLICITLY recognize the MS Model of
policy development is inadequate.' end quote

That is also my view currently.

Is it not possible that the GAC or some other policy development process
may,  when viewed under the lens of a 'respect for for human rights' p d
p,  is rejected or modified to bring it in line with a concensus position?
rd

On Sep 6, 2016 7:18 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:

Thanks David.  This is exactly why we cannot use the Ruggie definition of
“respect”.    Again, it is difficult for me to see how Ruggie applies since
those principles are developed in relation to a corporation that operates
“top down” rather than “bottom up” and were not developed in relation to
the unique MS policy development framework that applies to ICANN.

The Ruggie definition of “respect” would require ICANN action in the
context of evaluating and minimizing  Human Rights adverse impact in *all
its business relationships*.

ICANN’s primary business relationships are registry contracts.  This
includes award and renewal of gTLD contracts    (As a side note, and also
noting my bias as an IP lawyer in favor of  the protection of trademark and
copyright,  the UDRP and URS processes are not “business relationships” of
ICANN. ) These are dispute resolution processes developed through a
bottom-up MS approach – again a concept that is completely foreign to
businesses for which Ruggie principles were developed.

So from my point of view, Ruggie is inapposite and we need to “start from
scratch” so that the FOI being developed recognizes the existing ICANN MS
Model and the existing policy development process and functions of policy
advice coming from the GAC and ALAC and other entities in addition to the
GNSO.  This is definitely a “balancing act” of Core Values for the
Community and the Board.  Any Human Rights FOI that does not EXPLICITLY
recognize the MS Model of policy development is inadequate.

I would therefore suggest a preamble to the FOI along the following lines:

PREAMBLE TO HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK OF INTERPRETATION

“WHEREAS the application of internationally-recognized Human Rights
principles in the context of ICANN’s mission and scope requires policy
development processes within the ICANN Community and

WHEREAS, the application of these principles to ICANN’s activities may
require a balancing of ICANN’s Core Values as outlined in the By-Laws at
Subparagraph ____(c )  (REPEAT text previously referenced by Jorge Cancion
and pasted below)

NOW THEREFORE, the CCWG- ACCT recommends the following Framework of
Interpretation in relation to the application of the new Human Rights
By-Law adopted by the Board on ___________ (date) to ICANN’s scope and
mission.”

Separately, I personally believe a Human Rights Objection process may be
appropriate, thereby taking ICANN itself out of the content regulation
business in relation to gTLD applications and awards, but this of course
would be a matter for policy development.

Anne

"(c) The Commitments and Core Values are intended to apply in the broadest

possible range of circumstances. The Commitments reflect ICANN’s

fundamental compact with the global Internet community and are intended to

apply consistently and comprehensively to ICANN’s activities. The specific

way in which Core Values are applied, individually and collectively, to any

given situation may depend on many factors that cannot be fully anticipated

or enumerated. Situations may arise in which perfect fidelity to all Core

Values simultaneously is not possible. Accordingly, in any situation where

one Core Value must be balanced with another, potentially competing Core

Value, the result of the balancing must serve a policy developed through the

bottom-up multistakeholder process or otherwise best serve ICANN’s Mission."

*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

*From:* ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] *On
Behalf Of *McAuley, David
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 3:34 PM
*To:* Dr. Tatiana Tropina; ws2-hr@icann.org

*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?

Interesting discussion among thoughtful folks, in which I find myself with
Greg and Tanya.

Work Stream One, in my opinion/recollection, never intended for the FoI
team to throw open the doors and see what we could come up with. I recall a
great deal of concern over the notion of an expansive HR commitment and
don’t think we would have reached closure if the HR provision would have
been a broad one. I think Tanya captured that correctly.

As I read it, the bylaw that we are interpreting creates the FoI sub-team
‘charter’ (Section 27.2) as an effort containing “limitations” rather than
an invitation to expand the bylaw (Article 1.2(b)(viii) begins “Subject to
the limitations set forth in Section 27.2 …”).

Whatever FoI we come up with must be approved by the full CCWG, will be
sent through the COs, and is subject to board approval – some of the same
drivers that helped shape the focus of the Bylaw we came up with in Section
1.2(b)(viii). And the FoI must be consistent with a bylaw that requires
respect for HR within the scope of ICANN’s narrow and unique mission.

David

David McAuley

International Policy Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154

*From:* ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org
<ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Dr. Tatiana Tropina
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:38 PM
*To:* ws2-hr@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?

Dear Daniel,

I would rather disagree with broadening the view that much.

First of all, there are other documents from CCWG than define the tasks of
this group, than only the bylaw text. In particular, Annex 06 (p. 2) of the
CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1
Recommendations report, that was approved, says:

"Include the following in Work Stream 2 activities:
- Develop an *FOI-HR for the Human Rights Bylaw*" (underlined by me).

The drafters of the CCWG report could have been of course more specific and
put the wording "FoI for the HR Bylaw" everywhere, but I think it actually
never dawned on them that there will be a discussion on broadening the
scope of the FoI that much. At least the wording of the Annex 6 (and Annex
12 about WS2) indicates that it's a FoI for bylaw and not for the whole
human rights impact assessment (HRIA) within ICANN.

Secondly, even a mere interpretation of the bylaw will require a lot of
analysis of what you refer to, but extending the work of this group to the
whole HRIA is outside of our mandate I think. There was a report of the
Cross-community working party for human rights (which is not the part of
the work of this CCWG) prepared for the ICANN meeting in Dublin that
actually showed that the full HRIA, though might be a desirable option, is
a time- and resources-consuming process and might be recommended only in a
long-term. We can of course consider recommending ICANN to carry out a HRIA
as a part of the FoI, why not, but doing the whole assessment on our own,
in this group, rather looks like an impossible task - both in terms of
resources and mandate.

I think the work of this group should definitely focus on the bylaw
interpretation at the moment, because we do have to agree on what the bylaw
means first before we will make any further recommendations.

warm regards
Tatiana

On 06/09/16 20:36, Daniel Appelman wrote:

I would take a broader view than the one Greg has just suggested.  Nowhere
in the Bylaw and the conditions upon which it would become effective does
it say that the WS2 team’s activities should be restricted to footnoting
the Bylaw or prohibited from making recommendations on human rights-related
policies.  In fact, our mandate is to develop and recommend a “framework of
interpretation for human rights”.  This is much broader than providing “a
framework of interpretation for the Bylaw”.  We will not be doing our job
unless we consider what human rights are impacted by ICANN and its
relationships with third parties and then develop recommendations as to the
scope of ICANN’s obligations under the Bylaw to respect those human rights
in engaging in those relationships.

Dan

*Daniel Appelman*

Partner

*Montgomery & Hansen, LLP*

525 Middlefield Road, Suite 250

Menlo Park, CA 94025

*650.331.7014 <650.331.7014> (direct)*

650-245-8361 (mobile)

650.331.7000 (main)

650.331.7001 (fax)

*www.mh-llp.com* <http://www.mh-llp.com/>

[image: New Logo - email ver]

This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail, and destroy
all copies of the original message.  To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this
communication, unless expressly stated otherwise, was not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s)
addressed herein.

*From:* ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org
<ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 11:13 AM
*To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne
*Cc:* ws2-hr@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?

Whatever we do, we can't create gTLD policy.  We can (and indeed must)
provide guidance in how the Bylaw should be interpreted by those engaged in
gTLD policy development.  But the policy development process cannot take
place here.

We also should not be creating procedural mechanisms for when a Human
Rights impact evaluation is triggered.  Nor should we even be the one to
create or mandate a human rights impact evaluation.  Again, we should
provide guidance in how the Bylaw should be interpreted by those who might
consider whether to create such mechanisms or evaluations, and those who
create them.

We need to stick to our mandate, which is to provide a Framework of
Interpretation for the Bylaw.  To my mind, this essentially means
"annotating" the Bylaw, with what amount to a series of footnotes, so that
the language used will be used consistently by groups that come after this
one.

Greg

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>
wrote:

Protection of registrant data is certainly important. This was studied for
quite a long time by the Expert Working Group on WhoIs and is now the
subject of a GNSO Policy Development Process.  As I understand it, the new
framework for Directory Registry Services essentially proposes a “need to
know” threshold test.  I think it would be naïve for this Workstream 2
group to hold that Human Rights (in the form of privacy and freedom of
expression) were not considered by the EWG or won’t be considered in the
final outcome of the PDP.  In fact, the activities of these groups with
respect to registrant data have sought to balance two clearly listed Human
Rights guidelines in the UDRP – that is the privacy right and the rights of
authors (i.e. intellectual property rights).

I don’t think the work done in the FOI for Workstream 2 Human Rights is
supposed to trump the policy work of the GNSO or the public policy advice
of the GAC or the advice of the ALAC.  Still not sure, however, how this
Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights can be considered anything
other than new gTLD policy when applied to ICANN’s new gTLD activities,
including, but not limited to,

1.       Award of registry contracts

2.       Contractual provisions required in registry (and by implication
registrar) contracts.

3.       Adjudication of Requests for Reconsideration

4.       Adjudication of complaints filed with ICANN with respect to Spec
11 Public Interest Commitments

5.       Possible revocation of gTLD contract awards in relation to
registry operators using TLDs for Human Rights abuse purposes.

Separately, regarding, for example, UDRP and URS proceedings, these are not
actually activities of ICANN.  These are dispute resolution mechanisms that
take place outside ICANN’s operations and are less directly implicated in
the Human Rights framework than the activities listed in 1 through 5 above.
  However, these are mechanisms developed through the ICANN Policy
Development Process.

As a practical matter, it would seem that the best this WS2 team can do is
establish a procedural mechanism for determining when a Human Rights Impact
review is triggered and a process where the Community conducts such a Human
Rights Impact review.  This necessarily would have to correlate with Policy
Development.  In the end, the various policy advisory groups may well
disagree as they provide advice to the Board and it is the Board which
makes the final decision, even in the new Empowered Community model.  The
Board receives advice from many different sources.  One such source is the
European Commission, whose advice is one reason this new By-Law exists and
one reason this group exists in WS2.

The only practical way forward from my point of view is for this group to
define criteria as to when a Human Rights Impact evaluation is triggered
and how it should be conducted within policy-making activities already
going on in the Community.  This would include the five items listed above
if indeed we are to use such general language as is proposed in the FOI in
relation to “respect human rights” in a manner which requires ICANN to take
action to eliminate or reduce adverse Human Rights impact in the business
relationships and activities with which it is involved.

I can compare all this to the process in the U.S. which requires an
Environmental Impact Statement as to various business activities.   The
criteria for a Human Rights Impact Statement might be a starting point.
However, in developing such a Human Rights Impact evaluation, and as agreed
in WS1, we cannot focus on just one or two or three of the relevant Human
Rights.  None of the Human Rights documents we refer to rank these rights
in order of priority as far as I know.  The rights of authors and
indigenous peoples I represent are just as important as the rights of
freedom of expression and privacy.  In fact, author’s rights (including the
copyright rights which give the authors the exclusive right to make changes
to their own works) may be equally important to condemning oppressive
governmental action or exploitation of native culture for corporate or
personal gain.  (Why would registrant information be protected for sellers
of fake Navajo jewelry?)

Again, by way of SOI disclosure, I represent the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and my
firm represents the Navajo Nation for certain intellectual property
matters.  (We currently have no instructions from either with respect to
participation in ICANN so my views are my own.)  In ICANN’s activities, it
appears to me that a Human Rights Impact analysis is ALWAYS a question of
balancing various Human Rights.

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

*From:* ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] *On
Behalf Of *Tijani BEN JEMAA
*Sent:* Sunday, September 04, 2016 11:13 AM
*To:* Paul Rosenzweig

*Cc:* ws2-hr@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?

Dear all,

I agree with Paul that among the main questions for us to come up with a
Frame of Interpretation of the Human Rights in the ICANN mission would be:

   -        What substance we see in the phrase human rights inside ICANN
   Mission?
   -        When, if ever, ICANN should give that substance (whatever it
   may be) effect?

 I can’t say they are the only meaningful questions since there will be
subsequent questions. But let’s start with the first question: I think that
to address it, we may begin by giving practical easy cases.

The protection of the registrant data is one of the most obvious case of
human right that falls in the ICANN mission. This may also affect the ICANN
contract with registries/registrars

------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------

*Tijani BEN JEMAA*

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)

Phone: +216 98 330 114

            +216 52 385 114

------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------

Le 4 sept. 2016 à 18:24, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@
redbranchconsulting.com> a écrit :

Dear Farzaneh

Of course your questions are meaningful.  Indeed, the ONLY two meaningful
questions in this discussion are a) what substance we see in the phrase
human rights? And b) When, if ever, ICANN should give that substance
(whatever it may be) effect?

Your questions clearly go to the later of these two issues.  Members of the
group may disagree on the answers we reach, but you’re asking questions
that have real meaning – whatever anyone may say to the contrary.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

www.redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/

*From:* ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org
<ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *farzaneh badii
*Sent:* Sunday, September 4, 2016 11:56 AM
*To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
*Cc:* ws2-hr@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?

Calling something "not meaningful" is very easy. But it does not devalue
its merits, fortunately.  Please provide a rationale for why the questions
are not meaningful. I don't have to consult with the co-chairs to discuss
the questions here. If the group feels that it is unnecessary to discuss
these questions they can simply not respond, if they feel we should
re-formulate them, then we can.

The questions are to clarify what we mean by ICANN should not become a
content regulator. The discussions that can arise responding to the
question and sub-questions which I have posted can lead us towards a more
tangible understanding of what we mean when we say ICANN should not become
a content regulator and should not go out of its scope and mission when
upholding human rights.

Best

Farzaneh

On 4 September 2016 at 17:34, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
wrote:

Dear All,

I do not understand the meaning and purpose of these questions.

Perhaps the author of the questions could consult other two co chairs and
come up with meaningfull text.

We can not send out these questions at all

Reagrds

Kavouss

2016-09-04 14:25 GMT+02:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>:

Hi all,

Sorry for sending out the questions late. I wanted to provide a gist of
what we discussed during our call and then provide the questions but
unfortunately, we still do not have the recording. Below are some questions
for the group to discuss:

Considering ICANN's scope and mission, when should ICANN uphold human
rights?

- In its consideration to enter into contracts with registries and
registrars? (for example, when they are considering a new gTLD application)

- During the contractual relationship with the registries and the
registrars by obligating the registries and registrars to enforce human
rights?

Best

-- 

Farzaneh

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

-- 

Farzaneh

_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
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.

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

_______________________________________________

Ws2-hr mailing list

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.

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

Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?

Rudolph Daniel

Nigel Roberts

Aikman-Scalese, Anne

Nigel Roberts

John Curran

Nigel Roberts

Aikman-Scalese, Anne

Aikman-Scalese, Anne

Nigel Roberts

Seun Ojedeji

Kavouss Arasteh

Seun Ojedeji

tags

participants (6)