Hi Sam,

Thanks for this, reply inline:

On 08/03/2016 09:25 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> I have stayed relatively quiet in the ICANN and Human Rights (HR)
> discussion. I will make my position known here, in very brief language,
> not so much as to record my position but to bring some perspective to
> the possible way forward.
> 
> ICANN is a not-for-profit entity pledged to operate in the public
> interest. It goes without saying that this includes respect for Human
> Rights, but it may be worth having ICANN say it on the record, but leave
> it to others to judge ICANN’s record with regard to Human Rights.
> 

I'm not sure if this 'goes without saying' then we would not have needed
such a long discussion in WS1, and now also in WS2.

As you know there is also a seperate discussion on defining the Public
Interest. I think it's useful to not conflate the two, since tackling
problems one-by-one is often easier than everything at one.

> What do I mean by that? What do I suggest? My thinking is that ICANN can
> pledge to consider the Human Rights aspects of all of its DNS Internet
> governance policies and implementation, 

While I agree with the tendency of what you say here, I think more
detail is needed. Which treaties will be considered, and how will its
impact be assessed?

> but (BIG BUT) ICANN stops short
> of incorporating anything like a Human Rights check list, a Human Rights
> score card, or internal ICANN human rights performance monitoring, as it
> pursues policy development. 

But do you see than that ICANN lives up to its commitment?

> Leave that to constituencies as they
> struggle within the multistakeholder policy development process, and
> leave the assessments of ICANN’s record to outside third parties for
> whom Human Rights are central to their own mission, vision and remit.

But we would not need any structure for this? Would that not leave the
commitment rather empty and up for discussion as people see fit?

> 
> Why do I suggest this split between an ICANN pledge and outside
> monitoring? There is a legitimate fear that internalizing the monitoring
> process would malfunction at several levels. It could become unwieldy,
> it could become time consuming, it could become self-serving, and it
> could become a venue for proxy fights around other issues. 

Is that chance not bigger if there is no clear definition and/or mechanism?

> Let ICANN and
> its multistakeholder policy making process, and its organizational
> implementation processes, be open and transparent, and let’s hold ICANN
> accountable on the Human Rights front by assessing it from outside ICANN.
> 

Who would do this? With want resources? According to what standards? And
what mechanism are there to ensure that the outside assessment that you
propose will be followed up? Are you suggesting something similar to ATRT?

Am more than happy to discuss this here, but it might also fit in the
CCWP-HR (there is a call tomorrow). Or in the CCWG Design Team on Human
Rights in Workstream 2.

Best,

Niels


> This should not be a struggle over whether Human Rights are in or out of
> ICANN.
> 
> Sam L.  NPOC/CSIH
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9