This is a complex matter which needs deeper study, so thank you for starting the conversation here and for sharing your perspective on this important issue, Sam. Where I agree with you: I agree we need to study what is within ICANN’s remit and, following on from this, seek to understand which parts of the remit have implications for human rights. Where we may have a disagreement: It is not enough – in my mind – to simply have ICANN declare what it’s role is in relation to human rights, and then expect the wider multistakeholder community to accept that and to monitor for compliance on the basis of what ICANN itself has seen as relevant. In my mind ICANN should have some internal checks and balances measuring compliance. In addition, there should be independent, outside monitoring (not funded by ICANN) holding ICANN accountable according to their own, independently-set benchmarks (not in any way developed by ICANN). The more open and transparent ICANN is, the easier this will be to implement in practice. I am no expert on this topic, so happy to be corrected and to learn more from the different perspectives others in our community hold on this complex topic. Thanks, Ayden On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 8:25 PM, Sam Lanfranco [log in to unmask] 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. This should not be a struggle over whether Human Rights are in or out of ICANN. Sam L. NPOC/CSIH -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: [log in to unmask] Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest