[CCWG-ACCT] (no subject)
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Fri Jan 15 08:59:29 UTC 2016
Leon, all:
Sam, and the Board are 100% correct.
As I stated early on in this discussion, the addition of the qualifying
weasel words including the expression 'applicable law' appears to be a
knowing and deliberate attempt by those opposed to ICANN having any
obligation to respect fundamental rights, to eviscerate any obligations
in that regard.
I am entirely serious here.
And I submit this perception is corrosive. Both to the trust in the
Board's good intentions, and in that of the CCWG.
Let me put it this way: fundamental rights obligatons do not apply to
private sector organisations as a matter of either domestic OR
international law.
'Applicable law' therefore is a nullity.
The effect of this is that the wording imposed by the proposed wording
appears designed to give a patina to WS1 that ICANN will respect human
rights, whilst in law, removing all obligations /whatsoever/.
That is unacceptable, and I therefore stand with the Board on this one,
although I probably reached this place by a different route.
On 15/01/16 05:13, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> Hello Leon,
>
> It may be good to post here what "option c" text looks like. Secondly, I
> believe legal are only to provide legal opinion and I think the question
> you ask may be better directed to the board.
>
> Regards
>
> On 14 Jan 2016 22:09, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>> wrote:
>
> Hi Sam,
>
> Thanks for this input. Would you feel comfortable with option c on
> human rights?
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> León
>
>> El 14/01/2016, a las 2:22 p.m., Samantha Eisner
>> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>
>> escribió:
>>
>> Thanks for this note. I provide the following reaction in my role
>> as an attorney with ICANN.
>>
>> The concern raised by the Board in its comments was not solely
>> focused on the issue of increased potential for lawsuits or IRPs.
>> Rather, the Board focused on the /impact/ of opening up ICANN to
>> suits or IRPs based on human rights issues prior to having the
>> framework for consideration of ICANN’s role in respecting human
>> rights. As Bruce explained on the 12 January 2015 call, not
>> having a framework leaves either courts or IRP panels to determine
>> how human rights fit into ICANN’s mission. Leaving ICANN’s
>> mission open to that type of external definitional work seems
>> counter to all the effort of the CCWG-Accountability to confirm
>> ICANN’s narrow and limited mission.
>>
>> Including undefined commitments to human rights in the
>> Bylaws without the framework to guide courts or IRP panels in how
>> they should consider the scope of human rights commitments in
>> ICANN, creates a risk for the entire community. CCWG Counsel’s
>> suggestion that IRP usage could be limited, by example, through
>> “preclud[ing] claims of human rights violations that are not
>> grounded in a specific violation of an applicable law”,still
>> leaves the question of what law would be applicable? How do we
>> know that the laws that will be relied upon are respectful of
>> ICANN’s limited mission?
>>
>> The question isn’t really “will ICANN be subject to more suits?”
>> As CCWG counsel noted, the potential of suit always exists. The
>> potential of IRPs being brought on human rights grounds is
>> probably increased if there is a specific Bylaws mention of human
>> rights. However, these are not where the real risks occur. The
>> question that should be considered is “Does the community wish to
>> leave the definition of ICANN’s role in human rights to Courts or
>> IRP panels?". Also, it is important to note that the Board’s
>> comments do not remove the possibility of human rights being
>> referred to in the Bylaws, but rather propose that consideration
>> of that placement should happen after a framework is completed.
>>
>> I look forward to continuing this conversation with the CCWG.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> From:"Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory at sidley.com
>> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>> Date:Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 4:28 PM
>> To:Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert
>> <thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>, León Sánchez
>> Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>,
>> "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>> Cc:"ACCT-Staff (acct-staff at icann.org
>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>)" <acct-staff at icann.org
>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>, Sidley ICANN CCWG
>> <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>,
>> ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com
>> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>, "'Rosemary E. Fei'"
>> <rfei at adlercolvin.com <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com>>, Samantha
>> Eisner <samantha.eisner at icann.org <mailto:samantha.eisner at icann.org>>
>> Subject:<no subject>
>>
>>
>> Dear CCWG Co-Chairs, Members and Participants and ICANN Staff, ____
>> Attached please find our memo responding to the certified question
>> of January 11, 2016 regarding litigation risks related to the
>> proposed human rights bylaws provisions. Kind regards, Holly and
>> Rosemary____
>> __ __
>> *HOLLY J. GREGORY*
>> Partner and Co-Chair
>> Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice
>>
>> *Sidley Austin LLP**
>> *+1 212 839 5853 <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853>
>> holly.gregory at sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>____
>> __ __
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that
>> is privileged or confidential.
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail
>> and any attachments and notify us
>> immediately.
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list