[NCUC-DISCUSS] IGF 2018 Workshop Proposal Submitted

[Michael Karanicolas]

Thanks Ayden.

I guess my response to the charge that I deliberately tried to hide this
from the NCUC is... why? You've seen the proposal now - what's in it that I
could possibly have been reluctant to share?

In mid-May the EC started a discussion on list about possible topics, and
we received pushback on every idea that was floated (substantially from
you, it's worth noting). At the end of that, I basically gave up on trying
to push things forward, thinking it would be too difficult to try and pull
an entirely new idea out of the air given the timeline and my other
commitments. Then the extension was announced. In the course of prepping
for our June 1 CCWP Human Rights call, I texted Collin to ask if she
thought there was any potential to putting in a proposal on HRIAs at ICANN.
She liked the idea, and we decided to discuss it further on the CCWP call -
which is open to everyone, and which acted as our ideation process. Then on
June 4, we started writing - and the proposal was basically drafted over
the course of 8 hours or so thanks to a herculean effort by Collin. We
shared it as soon as we had a draft. I guess we could have shared the link
in the morning and let people view it and collaborate as we worked on it -
I would have had no problem with that - though I don't think that's
normally how these things are done.

Look - I accept the complaints about the timeline for review being too
rushed. I need to do better on that next time. That's just sort of how this
came together, but certainly we should have started earlier. I wanted the
NCUC to have something to submit for IGF, and as I've said on the list, I
would be happy to get more feedback and to amend the proposal as needed
going forward - including while it's still under review, if necessary. But
the complaints about some hidden process are just ridiculous given that
there was literally 8 hours between when the first words were put to paper
and when the draft was shared.

I also think it's telling that, despite your claims of not having the time
to review this 4 page document between Monday and Wednesday, you have
managed to find the time to draft two emails over roughly the same
timeframe complaining about the process, as well as to go sleuthing through
the Google doc to check the timestamps of the work. Imagine how much time
we would have to devote to our advocacy if we didn't spend so much of it
tearing each other down.

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 5:29 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> I greatly appreciate that we are all volunteers, and it is time consuming
> to produce workshop proposals like this one, but I think it is important
> that proposals that are being submitted under the NCUC moniker are being
> shared with NCUC members in advance with enough time for us to review the
> contents. This is not the first time this has happened - your RightsCon
> proposal was submitted to the list 24 hours before the deadline.
>
> I think it is not acceptable to submit a proposal to an external party for
> review and to then, if it is accepted, to consult with members as to the
> session contents. Both should happen, and the proposal should be something
> that NCUC members have been able to shape. If this was a one-off occurrence
> I would say nothing. But it isn't and the deadline for IGF workshop
> proposals has been known for two months. When I have asked for clarity
> earlier around what proposals the NCUC would submit, this idea was never
> floated. It has appeared out of no where.
>
> I think you have shared this proposal intentionally at the last minute
> Michael, just like you did with the RightsCon proposal, and I believe this
> IGF proposal has been developed in a manner that is inconsistent with the
> NCUC's values of transparency -- which I'd have thought you'd have known
> something about. It is obvious that you have discussed the contents of this
> proposal off-list with a select group of others ahead of time, as there is
> no communication on the EC list as to its contents, though some of the
> Google Doc comments have timestamps from before it was shared on our public
> list.
>
> If ICANN, ALAC, or anyone else did this and presented it as an inevitable
> consequence of a fast-approaching deadline, I'd have called this out as
> well. If there was a legitimate time crunch, that would have been one thing
> -- but you and I both know there wasn't, and I am disappointed that you
> have used this reason to justify developing and submitted a workshop
> proposal in a manner inconsistent with the values at least some of us
> support and try to advocate for.
>
> Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On 6 June 2018 9:08 PM, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The IGF proposal on ICANN and multistakeholder HRIAs has now been
> submitted, after receiving majority assent from the EC. Thanks to everyone
> who worked on this or provided inputs, but most especially to Collin, who
> really did the heavy lifting in terms of drafting and taking this forward.
>
> The details of the submission are copied below. We are still open to
> suggestions and inputs, in particular for our additional panelist, as we
> are keen to improve the panel's regional diversity, so would be very
> interested to hear any ideas about possible speakers from the APAC or LAC
> regions in particular who have a good background in this topic.
>
> Best wishes and fingers crossed!
>
> Michael
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *"Internet Governance Forum" <no-reply at intgovforum.org>
> *Subject: **IGF 2018 Workshop Proposal Submitted*
> *Date: *June 6, 2018 at 6:26:14 PM GMT+1
> *To: *Collin at article19.org
>
> Dear Ms. Collin Kurre,
>
> Your Workshop Proposal for IGF 2018 titled A Multistakeholder Approach to
> HRIAs: Lessons from ICANN has been received.
>
> It will be evaluated according to the process outlined at
> https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/mag-worksho
> p-review-and-evaluation-process-for-igf-2018.
>
> The proposal data submitted is as follows:
>
>
> I. Session Title: A Multistakeholder Approach to HRIAs: Lessons from ICANN
>   ==*II. Session Format*==
>   Session Format: Round Table - 60 Min
>
>
>   ==*III. Theme*==
>     Theme:
> Human
>     Rights, Gender & Youth
> Subtheme: Other [1]
>     Subtheme Description: HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
>
>
>   ==*IV. Proposer (Contact Person)*==
>     Gender: Female
>     Family Name: Kurre
>     Given Name: Collin
>     Nationality: United States
>     E-mail: Collin at article19.org
>     Stakeholder Group: Civil Society
>     Regional Group: Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
>     Organization: ICANN Non-Commercial Users Constituency
>     Country where Organization is based: United States
>
>
>   ==*V. Organizing Team*==
>     Email addresses of organizers (comma separated):
>     mkaranicolas at gmail.com, louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com,
>     bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
>
>
>   ==*VI. Speakers*==
>     Email addresses of provisionally confirmed speakers (comma
>     separated): Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch, michele at blacknight.com,
>     collin at article19.org, manon.aubry at oxfamfrance.org
>
>
> VII. Relevance of the Issue:
> Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) are a useful and increasingly
> widespread tool to inform private actors of the potential negative impacts
> of
> their policies, and to help mitigate their consequences. Prior panels,
> including at IGF, have been instrumental in developing best practices for
> HRIAs in the ICT sector This round table aims to further advance the
> discussion by introducing new HRIA models emerging from ICANN’s
> multistakeholder process, including valuable lessons which can be scaled
> out
> to improve HRIA models more generally.
>
> In 2016, ICANN added the Core Value of “respecting internationally
> recognized human rights as required by applicable law” to its bylaws. The
> provision was made at the time, however, that the new human rights bylaw
> would remain dormant unless and until a framework of interpretation was
> developed and approved by the ICANN Board. As of March 2018, the framework
> of
> interpretation has been finalized and is awaiting approval, which has in
> turn
> led to new work within ICANN’s advisory and policy-making bodies to devise
> means of incorporating the new Core Value into their processes. Thus far,
> multistakeholder human rights impact assessments have gained the most
> traction as a potential compliance mechanism.
>
> Multistakeholder impact assessments are premised on meaningful inclusion
> and
> stakeholder engagement throughout the process, with representatives from
> companies and communities coming together to jointly develop and undertake
> impact assessments. Such a collaborative approach has the potential to
> achieve a more accountable process, while generating trust among
> participants. Multistakeholder impact assessments also overcome the
> perceived
> biases of strictly company-led HRIAs, which are often conducted internally
> with little consultation from civil society or affected communities, and
> community-led assessments, which may lack crucial information about
> decision-making processes.
>
> In impact assessments, the term “communities” generally refers to groups
> of people living in the same locality. When applied in the ICANN context,
> however, the term “community” expands exponentially to encompass the
> entirety of Internet users, as well as other companies, academia, technical
> operators, and even governments. Multistakeholder HRIAs in ICANN benefit
> from
> the differing perspectives and skill sets of these stakeholder groups,
> thereby resulting in an impact assessment that is potentially more
> comprehensive, actionable, and technically sound.
>
> This round table will be divided into three parts, looking at the origins,
> influences, and progress of multistakeholder HRIAs in ICANN. Q&A intervals
> will follow each section to maximize audience engagement and promote a
> constructive flow of exchanges.
> VIII. Content of the Session:
>      Introduction (2 minutes)
> Part I: Origins and drivers of HRIAs in the ICANN context: Corporate Social
> Responsibility, the Human Rights Bylaw, and its Framework of Interpretation
> (5 minutes)
>      Audience Q&A (5 minutes)
> Part II: How do you assess the impact of the Internet?: HRIA case studies
> from Internet registries, registrars, and hosting providers (10 minutes)
>      Audience Q&A (8 minutes)
> Part III: Multistakeholder HRIAs, a new way forward: Overview of ongoing
> efforts to devise new HRIA models for the ICANN community; conclusions and
> lessons learned from pilot assessment (15 minutes)
>      Audience Q&A (15 minutes)
> IX. Interventions:
> Session speakers have been selected to represent a diversity of
> backgrounds,
> experiences and stakeholders groups, yet each of the speakers set forth in
> this session is uniquely qualified to speak on the subject at hand:
> - Jorge Cancio (Swiss Federal Office of Communications) has steadily
> contributed to human rights-related discussions in ICANN since their
> inception, and was an active participant in the group which developed the
> Framework of Interpretation for ICANN’s human rights bylaw.
> - Michele Neylon (Blacknight) is a longstanding leader in the ICANN
> community, and recently conducted a joint human rights impact assessment
> for
> his company’s registrar and hosting services in partnership with regional
> civil society organizations.
> - (Ideally, another representative from a technical operator in the DNS
> space
> who has also completed an HRIA will join the discussion to offer an
> additional perspective on the process.)
> - Collin Kurre (ARTICLE 19) co-chairs the Cross Community Working Party on
> ICANN and Human Rights, and leads A19’s work to develop new models of
> assessing the human rights impact of Internet infrastructure providers,
> including ICANN.
> - Manon Aubry (Oxfam, Sciences Po) leads Oxfam International's work on the
> UN
> Treaty on Business and Human Rights and has published extensively on HRIAs,
> including on the development of new HRIA methodologies.
>
> A timer will be used during this session to maximize exchanges among
> participants. Each speaker will have 5 minutes to introduce and develop
> their
> perspectives during the appropriate phase of the agenda. Planned
> interventions will be capped at time in order to permit fruitful exchanges
> with other attendees. A brief, moderated exchange among speakers will
> follow
> the final intervention in Part III, then the floor will be opened once more
> for questions and comments from round table participants. In the Q&A
> intervals that follow each section, questions will be limited to 30 seconds
> and answers to one minute in order to maximize audience engagement and
> promote a constructive flow of exchanges.
> X. Diversity: The organizing team, moderators and panelists are all gender
> balanced, and the panel includes a mix of participants from the private
> sector, civil society, and government. The proposer and two of the three
> members of the organizing team are under 30, and the team includes
> participants from three continents. Although the topic of digital rights
> impact assessments is still very niche, the diverse speakers and members
> the
> organizing team all have an active level of engagement with the proposed
> subject. Finally, the organizing body for the session — ICANN’s
> Noncommercial Users’ Constituency, or NCUC — is a global organization
> which includes representatives from 161 countries. The NCUC’s global
> membership participated in developing this proposal, and the organizers
> will
> continue to engage with the NCUC community in the run up to the session to
> respond to questions and gather feedback from its global network.
> XI. Onsite Moderator: Michael Karanicolas
> XII. Online Moderator: Bruna Santos
> XIII. Rapporteur: Louise Marie Hurel
> XIV. Online Participation:
> The opportunity for Q&A will extend to remote participants, who will be
> given
> the opportunity to ask questions through the IGF's dedicated online forum.
> Both the onsite moderator and remote moderator have abundant experience
> managing remote participation in the ICANN context and take seriously the
> need for remote inclusion. However, due to time constraints, only questions
> — not comments or observations — from remote participants will be
> introduced as interventions. The organizing team will advise remote
> participants at the beginning of the meeting that questions should be
> clearly
> indicated as such, starting with "QUESTION:" in the chat. The remote
> moderator, assisted by the rapporteur, will then be responsible for
> monitoring at what point remote questions enter the queue, signalling to
> the
> onsite moderator, and reading the questions out loud in a dedicated
> microphone.
>
> In addition to the aforementioned fora, we will also promote a dedicated
> hashtag (#ICANNHRIA) so that the panelists, audience members, and online
> participants can discuss the issues raised in real time on a more widely
> accessible medium. A collaborative document will gather records of
> questions,
> as well as comments, observations, and other remarks made during and after
> the workshop, so that they can later be integrated into the report.
> XV. Discussion facilitation: The structure of this round table is intended
> to
> foster an inclusive conversation and promote constructive exchanges between
> discussants and other round table participants, both onsite and online.
> Prior
> to the event, preparatory documents will be circulated to speakers and at
> least one coordination call will he beld to ensure that each speaker is
> prepared and secure in their interventions. During the session, online
> participation will be facilitated as mentioned above in order to promote
> constructive exchanges among participants, bridging onsite and online
> contributors.
>   ==*XVI. Past IGF Participation*==
>     History in IGF: Yes
>     Report Link:
>
> https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedep
> ot_download/5902/886
>
>
> XVII. Sustainable Development Goals:
> GOAL 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote sustainable
> industrialization, and foster innovation
> ---Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure,
> including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic
> development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable
> access for all
> ---Significantly increase access to information and communications
> technology
> and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in
> least developed countries by 2020
>
> GOAL 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
> ---Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to
> adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information
> into
> their reporting cycle
> ---Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance
> with national policies and priorities
>   ==*XVIII. Connecting with IGF Intersessional Groups & NRIs*==
>     Best Practice Forums:
>     Dynamic Coalitions: IRPC, DC-Accountability, DCPR
>     National and Regional Initiatives: IGF BR, IGF UK
>
>
> XIX. Additional Background Paper (Optional):
> https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/sites/default/files
> /webform/ccwg-accountability-ws2-humanright-framework_of_
> interpretation_2018.pdf
> XX. Additional Reference Document Link (Optional):
> http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2014/05/A-Collaborative-Appro
> ach-to-HRIAs_Web.pdf
>
>
> Thank you for your interest in holding a workshop at the IGF.
>
> Kind regards,
> IGF Secretariat.
>
> [1] https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/subthemes2018hr/other
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20180607/1966919d/attachment.html>