[CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Thu Jul 30 11:51:50 UTC 2015
What about a cross reference to commitment number 1 ("in conformity with relevant principles of international law, international conventions, and applicable local law") in order to clarify that there is no substantial change?
Just a thought
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2015 13:29
An: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements
I appreciate this and view this formulation with much favor.
"Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect, and ensure the respect of, fundamental human rights".
I was trying to accept a compromise and was allowing that we only specifically mention the rights NTIA had explicitly mentioned in the communications.
In terms of the compromise formulation, almost requested that it state:
"Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect fundamental human, with special focus on the rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information."
But I was trying to be amenable. Perhaps too much. thanks for strengthening my backbone on this.
On 30-Jul-15 12:29, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> With respect to Avri, whose position I very much apprecite on these
> matter I certainly would object to that formulation mostloudly since
> it appears extremely well drafted with the design of excluding all the
> other fundamental rights.
> I'm not even going to make a list of what they are (you can look at
> hte Europan Union Charter at
> But fair hearing and a right to private life are right in the middle
> of ICANN's work.
> What is absolutely unacceptable is anything weaker than.
> "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to
> respect, and ensure the respect of, fundamental human rights".
> On 30/07/15 09:16, Drazek, Keith wrote:
>> Hi Avri,
>> In order to tie your suggestion directly to the language in Secretary
>> Strickling's April 2014 written congressional testimony (included in
>> a prior email) and to reduce concerns about scope creep, would
>> language along these lines be acceptable to you?
>>> "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed
>>> to respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free
>>> expression and the free flow of information."
>> Speaking personally, I could probably support this formulation. To be
>> clear, I have not discussed this with the RySG, but it's consistent
>> with the requirements outlined by NTIA so I think it's certainly
>> worth considering.
>> I'm not advocating including this in the Bylaws, but I'm not
>> objecting to it either. However, if we don't reach consensus for
>> adding to the Bylaws, I definitely think this is worth further
>> consideration in WS2 and would support an explicit reference using
>> this or similar language and timetable for doing so.
>>> On Jul 30, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>> Within its mission, ICANN will be committed to respect fundamental
>>> human rights in its operationsespecially with regard to the exercise
>>> of free expression or the free flow of information.
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community