[CCWG-ACCT] Report on Lawyers Call re Human Rights
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Fri Jan 22 07:55:10 UTC 2016
No.
I want ICANN to formally commit to respect the rights set out in the
Universal Declaration of Human RIghts, and do so willingly and proactively.
That's it.
On 22/01/16 07:40, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Nigel,
>
> It seems like you want ICANN to act as if it were a government. I think
> that's beyond even the most aggressive interpretation that has been
> espoused of what we are trying to do here.
>
> If nothing else, it shows how far we are from a common understanding of
> the intent and effect of the Human Rights bylaw.
>
> Greg
>
> On Friday, January 22, 2016, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net
> <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>> wrote:
>
> Holly
>
> This clearly shows the source of the confusion. The laws you quote,
> are domestic US laws on specific issues (some of which do act to
> protect human rights)
>
> Domestic legal obligation obviouls do not need to be stated or
> quoted in the ByLaws, since they apply as a matter of domestic law.
>
> But none of the rights in the UDHR apply to ICANN as a private
> company, such as the right to a fair hearing, the right to property etc.
>
> As a private company, there is no obligation on ICANN, for example,
> to ensure fair hearing of parties affected by its decisions.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 22/01/16 01:35, Gregory, Holly wrote:
>
> Just to clarify, laws that prohibit child labor, limit the hours
> that employees may be required to work without receiving
> over-time pay, require employers to refrain from limiting the
> ability of employees to freely associate for the purpose of
> pursuing unionization, protect against discrimination on the
> basis of race, gender, disability, or other criteria -- and
> there are more examples-- exist in many jurisdictions and are
> examples of "applicable laws" that protect human rights.
>
> HOLLY J. GREGORY
> Partner and Co-Chair
> Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice
>
> Sidley Austin LLP
> +1 212 839 5853
> holly.gregory at sidley.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:13 AM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Report on Lawyers Call re Human Rights
>
> So long as the 'applicable law' clause remains, ICANN will have
> NO legal
> obligations to respect human rights, post transition, on a literal
> construction.
>
> Therefore the proposed addition, whilst harmless, is perfectly
> otiose.
>
> There are many lawyers involved in proposing the 'applicable
> law' language.
>
> I cannot believe you do not know that there is NO 'applicable
> law' once
> ICANN is no longer an instrumentality of the state.
>
> Otherwise please give an example of a single legal provision on
> human
> rights that would fall under 'applicable law'.
>
> Just one.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list