​Its not true about that CSR is off-target for ICANN.





These UN Guiding Principles on Business and HR  apply to all business enterprises, both



transnational and others, regardless of their size, sector, location, ownership and structure.



ICANN’s set-up as a non-profit corporation is captured by the broad notion of “other



business enterprises” under these Principles, which includes any business entity, such as



corporate, or partnership, or any other legal form used to establish a business entity.





See Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Commentary on the Norms on the



Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, U.N.



Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/38/Rev.2 (2003), § 21.​







----



Dr. Monika Zalnieriute



C I H R : Centre for Internet & Human Rights I

a:  Mittelweg 50, 12053 Berlin, Germany I

e:  [log in to unmask] I

p:  +37062852809 |​

w: cihr.eu I





Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I



a:  Vilnius Str. 14 - 7, LT – 01402, Vilnius, Lithuania |

f:   www.facebook.com/zephiroplatform |

w:  zephiroplatform.wix.com/main |

e:  [log in to unmask] |

p:  +37062852809 |















________________________________

From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 2:49 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [Info] IPC Letter to ICANN regarding .SUCKS



Hmmm.

ICANN is not a corporation that produces a “product” – it is a regulator and coordinator  of the global DNS. It uses the private nonprofit corporate form only so that it can transcend national jurisdiction. Thus, the “corporate responsibility” model is off target. If people outside the “walled city” of ICANN are asking how it is performing in terms of corporate social responsibility they are asking the wrong question. But frankly, I don’t think many people are asking that. I deal with lots of people, including hundreds of students, who are not involved with ICANN and I have never heard that question asked.



ICANN’s biggest problem is the tendency for people to “overload” DNS regulation with social policy concerns (such as .doctor) that are better handled in other venues.



What you need from ICANN is a clearly defined scope of regulation, outside which it does not stray. And within that scope, you need for it to make clear rules that make it predictable to suppliers and consumers alike, and well-defined processes for making those rules.





From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 10:16 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [Info] IPC Letter to ICANN regarding .SUCKS



Milton,



Unfortunately much of this discussion is slicing into the issues under a constrained (in some cases simply binary) understanding of process here. You would be correct in what you say if your version of the core issues here was correct, but it is not. Put in terribly simple corporate terms, ICANN as a corporation is making product decisions, entering into contractual agreements, and then going completely silent when issues arise around them, or making very non-consultative decisions that sow anger and confusion. Example: ICANN and staff either did or did not issue a controversial directive to .doctor earlier this month. The .doctor applicant says it did and ICANN remains mute. This left NCSG to have a "maybe it did, maybe it didn't" discussion that lead nowhere. This has nothing to do with your cheap shot of calling discussion of these issues an appeal to "the heckler's veto". The less cheap shot come back to that is that expertise that misses context can be damaging to reasoned dialogue if credibility from credentials substitutes for evidence and analysis in context.



What is being asked outside the walled city of ICANN is how is it performing in terms of corporate social responsibility, and in general that has to do with not only its product decisions (which are not solely binary here) but how it engages in product related dialogues outside the walls of the city. On that later part ICANN remains mute and that will come back to haunt it.



Sam L.



On 30/03/2015 9:42 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

But this idea (ICANN must use its power to suppress anything controversial or it will come back to haunt it) is one of the WORST guides to policy we can possibly have. Such a view not only would make ICANN responsible for the views of anyone to which it hands a domain, it encourages it to regulate and suppress any form of expression that offends anyone – which means, of course that almost any significant form of expression could be targeted. In American legal theory, we call this the heckler’s veto.



From: Sam Lanfranco [mailto:[log in to unmask]]





"These episodes around gTLDs are going to come back to haunt ICANN in ways that will not be pleasant.". :-(













The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.