<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>Once again ,I appreciate the Board's comments on human Rights and its relatiion with IRP.</div><div>For ease of reading I would comment on each paragraph as follows: </div><div><br></div><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">Board’s Views on Human Rights </font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"><em>The Board appreciates the work by the community
on the first readings of reactions to the public comment on the Third Draft
Proposal from the CCWG-Accountability. In preparation for the second
reading, the Board provides these inputs to the CCWG-Accountability on
inclusion of Human Rights in the Bylaws, Scope of IRP and Scope of Community
IRP</em></font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><em>
</em></font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"><em> Comments</em></font></span></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000" face="Calibri">I too appreciate the Board's works and close collaboration </font></span></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">On Inclusion of Human Rights in the Bylaws, the
Board has the following reactions to the points identified in the redline
distributed after the first reading before the CCWG.</font></span></u></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"> </font></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"><em>The Board notes the continued discussion of this
issue on the CCWG-Accountability list, and that there continues to be some
divergence among the CCWG-Accountability on how to proceed among the options
presented. As noted in its comments to the Third Draft Report, the Board
remains committed to developing a Human Rights Statement for ICANN, and will
report to the community at ICANN 55 Marrakech on progress on this work.
The Board appreciates the import of this issue to the ICANN community, and
remains committed to working alongside the community towards a meaningful
framework to guide human rights considerations within ICANN’s mission<strong>. </strong></em></font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000" face="Calibri">Comments</font></span></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"><font color="#ff0000">Tks</font><em> </em></font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"><em>Regarding inclusion in the ICANN Bylaws, the
Board supports Option B, or allowing the WS2 effort on defining a framework to
proceed prior to considering whether to include a human rights obligation in
the Bylaws</em><strong>.</strong></font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"><strong> </strong><font color="#ff0000">Comments</font></font></span></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000" face="Calibri">This is Under review by CCWG </font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"><em>The Board appreciates the consideration the
CCWG-Accountability has given to the timing concerns raised by the Board in its
comments. Of note, the Board’s concerns in introducing a human rights
consideration in its Bylaws today prior to the completion of a framework was
not the only concern raised. The language presented by the
CCWG-Accountability for the Bylaws also raised concerns. As stated in the
Board’s comments:</em></font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000" face="Calibri"> Comments </font></span></b></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000" face="Calibri">It is a valid point and thus I support that position </font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#000000"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt">While the Board appreciates that the proposed
interim Bylaw text is intended to not place any additional obligations on
ICANN, the language could actually be used to greatly expand ICANN’s human
rights obligations. </span><span style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt">Some specific examples of concern include:</span></i></font></font></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font color="#ff0000" face="Calibri"><span style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt">Comments </span></font></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#ff0000"><span style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt">Yes it could expand ICANN’s human rights obligations, but not greatly</span></font></font></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#000000"><span style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><em><br></em></span></font></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><strong>
</strong></font><ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0cm"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><strong>
</strong></font><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;font-style:normal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt">Inclusion of a human rights commitment in the Bylaws would
immediately allow for IRPs to be brought on human rights grounds.
Similarly, there could be lawsuits relying on the Bylaws language filed
against ICANN. When the Bylaws commitment is vaguely stated, any
interpretation of the Bylaws language will be against ICANN, and have
binding impact on the community’s ability to define a framework. Neither
the IRP or the Courts will have any legal reason to wait for the community
to complete the next step, and could make their own interpretations of the
language.</span></i></li><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000">Comments</font></span></li><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000">Concourred </font></span></li><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><strong>
</strong></font><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;font-style:normal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt">The proposed Bylaws text, with reference to “applicable law” to
judge the acts of ICANN and those with relationships with ICANN, leaves
open the question of which law should be applicable. This language
expands, as opposed to limits, the potential scope of human rights
challenges<strong>.</strong></span></i></li><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;font-style:normal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000">Comments</font></span></i></li><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;font-style:normal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000">Law in force in the country that judgement is made</font> </span></i></li><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><strong>
</strong></font><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;font-style:normal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt">The language about “any entity having a relationship with ICANN “
raises the suggestion that the ICANN Bylaws have the power to bind those
with relationships with ICANN in how those entities respect, consider or
enforce human rights. ICANN does not have this power. For example,
registries and registrars contracted with ICANN do not take on any human
rights obligations because they contract with ICANN. This language
suggests that because they have a relationship with ICANN, there are human
rights concerns that they could be obligated to address.</span></i></li><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"></span></li><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"></span></li><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><em><strong>
</strong></em></font><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000">Comments</font></span></li><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000">Concourred </font></span></li><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"></span></li><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"></span><em>The language suggests that there is already a framework within
which ICANN processes complaints, requests or demands for ICANN to enforce
human rights issues, which there is not. Indeed, there still appears to be
divergence within the community about what should be considered as human
rights considerations within ICANN’s Mission. Without a framework,
challenges could be raised around issues that are not agreed to be within
ICANN’s Mission, such as access, content or education.</em></li></span><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000">Comments</font></span></li><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000">Concourred </font></span></li><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></ul><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"> </font></span></i></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">Leaving these types of issues open puts the
community, ICANN stakeholders such as contracted parties, and ICANN itself at
risk. Courts or binding IRP panels could be used to create precedent
defining what human rights are within ICANN’s Mission. These determinations are
better left for the ICANN community to sort out, instead of being imposed.
Leaving these questions open for others outside of the ICANN community to
define is not consistent with enhancing ICANN’s accountability. The Board urges
that the full scope of defined work on human rights should include
consideration of impacts across all of ICANN’s activities.</font></span></i></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"></p><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"></p><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><em> </em><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000" face="Arial">Comments</font></span></p><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000">Almost concourred </font></span></li></font></span><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">As noted by ICANN’s legal counsel, the concern
raised by the Board is not primarily about an increase in the potential
litigation across ICANN, but rather about the <i>impact</i> of that litigation
on the ICANN community, in the potential to define ICANN’s human rights
obligations before the community has the opportunity to complete that
work. The proposed limitation of applicable laws does not provide much
comfort, as there are no limitations of which laws will be suggested to be
applicable to which parties. This is not a trivial concern. Which
court and which law will be relied upon to decide if human rights includes a
requirement to make all registrant data public in an attempt to protect against
abusive content on websites? Or which court and which law will be relied
upon to require all registrant data to be made private to recognize privacy
interests or the potential impact to third parties with which ICANN does
business? It is examples such as these that demonstrate why the ICANN community
needs to weigh in on where ICANN’s human rights obligations start and stop,
before a court is invited to make those determinations.</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"></p><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"></p><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><strong> </strong><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000" face="Arial">Comment</font></span></p><li style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000">I Fully Agree to that analysis </font></span></li></font></span><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><u><span style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri">Recommendation
7, Scope of IRP:</font></span></u></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"><strong> </strong>The Board previously expressed concerns about the IRP being used for substantive appeals from process-specific expert panels, and notes the apparent agreement on the CCWG-Accountability to remove the expert appeals language from the scope of the IRP. Even with this removal, the Board notes that any violation of the ICANN Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws that occurs in conjunction with the consideration of an expert panel can appropriately be the basis of an IRP. The Board has the following additional comments</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000" face="Arial"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><br></span></font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt"><font color="#000000"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><span><font face="Calibri">1.</font><span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal">
</span></span></span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font face="Calibri">The IRP should not be used to
determine what documents are to be released as part of ICANN’s Documentary
Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP). If a DIDP response is in violation of
ICANN’s Bylaws/AoI, then an IRP can lie on the grounds of a Bylaws/AoI
violation. The Board notes that a more substantive appeal process for the
DIDP could be developed as part of the DIDP review in WS2. The
development of a substantive DIDP appeal process was not previously identified
as a WS1 effort.</font></span></b></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"> </font></span></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><ol style="list-style-type:decimal;direction:ltr"><li style="font-style:normal;font-weight:bold"><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt">The Board supports the
CWG-Stewardship contingency that the IRP is made available as part of the
accountability for the performance of the naming function work by PTI. The
implementation of this must be done carefully so as to not confuse ICANN’s
obligations with PTI’s obligations.</span></b></p><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"> </span></b></p></li></ol><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><ol style="list-style-type:decimal;direction:ltr"><li style="font-style:normal;font-weight:bold"><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt">The Board also supports the request
from the IAB that the protocol parameters are excluded from the IRP. </span></b></p><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"> </span></b></p></li></ol><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><ol style="list-style-type:decimal;direction:ltr"><li style="font-style:normal;font-weight:bold"><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt">The Board notes that there should be
a broad range of participants for the work of the IRP implementation team
(including jurists and those versed in international arbitration). </span></b></p><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"> </span></b></p></li></ol><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><ol style="list-style-type:decimal"><li style="font-style:normal"><p style="font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt">The Board discourages the use of
exemptions to the already limited world of “loser pays” outcomes of IRPs, such
as a proposed exemption for non-profit entities, as there should not be
incentive for a certain group of complainants to more easily bring IRPs if they
are not faced with the potential recourse for bringing IRPs on suspect grounds.</span></b></p><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000" face="Arial">Comment</font></span></font></span></p><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt"><span style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000" face="Arial"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt">This is being discussed </span></font></span><strong> </strong></p></span><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"></p><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt">Recommendation 4, Scope of Community IRP:</span></u></b></p><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"> </span></u></b></p><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><em>The Board reiterates its concerns regarding the
inclusion of expert panel appeals and substantive DIDP appeals, as stated in
regards to Recommendation 7. </em></span></p><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><em> </em></span></p><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><em>The Board appreciates the community discussion
regarding a carve-out of the Community IRP as it relates to PDP outcomes.
The Board notes that, particularly with a threshold of 3 SOs or ACs, there
other potential for the filing of a Community IRP to pit parts of the community
against other parts of the community, such as countering the Board’s acceptance
of advice from Advisory Committees. The Board encourages the
CCWG-Accountability to see if there are additional protections that can be
introduced so that community resources are not used to challenge properly taken
actions from another part of the community</em><strong>.</strong></span></p><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><span lang="EN-US"> <span style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt"><font color="#ff0000" face="Arial"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-size:14pt">This is being discussed </span></font></span><strong> </strong></span></p></li><li style="font-style:normal"><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><span lang="EN-US">Regards</span></p></li><li style="font-style:normal"><p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt;font-style:normal;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt"><span lang="EN-US">Kavouss</span></p></li></ol><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-19 3:15 GMT+01:00 Theresa Swinehart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org" target="_blank">theresa.swinehart@icann.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear CCWG, </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Please find below the Board's remarks for the discussions on the next CCWG call, which I'm sending on behalf of Bruce and Markus. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards, </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Theresa </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">____</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<p class="MsoNormal">The Board appreciates the work by the community on the first
readings of reactions to the public comment on the Third Draft Proposal from
the CCWG-Accountability. In preparation
for the second reading, the Board provides these inputs to the CCWG-Accountability
on inclusion of Human Rights in the Bylaws, Scope of IRP and Scope of Community
IRP<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>On Inclusion of
Human Rights in the Bylaws, the Board has the following reactions to the points
identified in the redline distributed after the first reading before the CCWG.<u></u><u></u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Board notes the continued discussion of this issue on
the CCWG-Accountability list, and that there continues to be some divergence
among the CCWG-Accountability on how to proceed among the options
presented. As noted in its comments to
the Third Draft Report, the Board remains committed to developing a Human
Rights Statement for ICANN, and will report to the community at ICANN 55
Marrakech on progress on this work. The
Board appreciates the import of this issue to the ICANN community, and remains
committed to working alongside the community towards a meaningful framework to
guide human rights considerations within ICANN’s mission. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regarding inclusion in the ICANN Bylaws, the Board supports
Option B, or allowing the WS2 effort on defining a framework to proceed prior
to considering whether to include a human rights obligation in the Bylaws.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Board appreciates the consideration the
CCWG-Accountability has given to the timing concerns raised by the Board in its
comments. Of note, the Board’s concerns
in introducing a human rights consideration in its Bylaws today prior to the
completion of a framework was not the only concern raised. The language presented by the
CCWG-Accountability for the Bylaws also raised concerns. As stated in the Board’s comments:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>While the Board
appreciates that the proposed interim Bylaw text is intended to not place any
additional obligations on ICANN, the language could actually be used to greatly
expand ICANN’s human rights obligations.
Some specific examples of concern include:<u></u><u></u></i></p>
<ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0in">
<li class="MsoNormal"><i>Inclusion of a human rights commitment in the Bylaws would
immediately allow for IRPs to be brought on human rights grounds.
Similarly, there could be lawsuits relying on the Bylaws language filed
against ICANN. When the Bylaws commitment is vaguely stated, any
interpretation of the Bylaws language will be against ICANN, and have
binding impact on the community’s ability to define a framework. Neither
the IRP or the Courts will have any legal reason to wait for the community
to complete the next step, and could make their own interpretations of the
language.<b><u></u><u></u></b></i></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><i>The proposed Bylaws text, with reference to “applicable law” to
judge the acts of ICANN and those with relationships with ICANN, leaves
open the question of which law should be applicable. This language
expands, as opposed to limits, the potential scope of human rights
challenges.<b><u></u><u></u></b></i></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><i>The language about “any entity having a relationship with ICANN “
raises the suggestion that the ICANN Bylaws have the power to bind those
with relationships with ICANN in how those entities respect, consider or
enforce human rights. ICANN does
not have this power. For example, registries and registrars contracted
with ICANN do not take on any human rights obligations because they
contract with ICANN. This language suggests that because they have a
relationship with ICANN, there are human rights concerns that they could
be obligated to address.<b><u></u><u></u></b></i></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><i>The language suggests that there is already a framework within
which ICANN processes complaints, requests or demands for ICANN to enforce
human rights issues, which there is not. Indeed, there still appears to be
divergence within the community about what should be considered as human
rights considerations within ICANN’s Mission. Without a framework,
challenges could be raised around issues that are not agreed to be within
ICANN’s Mission, such as access, content or education.<b><u></u><u></u></b></i></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i> </i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Leaving these types of
issues open puts the community, ICANN stakeholders such as contracted parties,
and ICANN itself at risk. Courts or
binding IRP panels could be used to create precedent defining what human rights
are within ICANN’s Mission. These determinations are better left for the ICANN
community to sort out, instead of being imposed. Leaving these questions open
for others outside of the ICANN community to define is not consistent with
enhancing ICANN’s accountability. The Board urges that the full scope of
defined work on human rights should include consideration of impacts across all
of ICANN’s activities.<u></u><u></u></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i> </i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As noted by ICANN’s legal counsel, the concern raised by the
Board is not primarily about an increase in the potential litigation across
ICANN, but rather about the <i>impact</i> of
that litigation on the ICANN community, in the potential to define ICANN’s
human rights obligations before the community has the opportunity to complete
that work. The proposed limitation of
applicable laws does not provide much comfort, as there are no limitations of
which laws will be suggested to be applicable to which parties. This is not a trivial concern. Which court and which law will be relied upon
to decide if human rights includes a requirement to make all registrant data
public in an attempt to protect against abusive content on websites? Or which court and which law will be relied
upon to require all registrant data to be made private to recognize privacy
interests or the potential impact to third parties with which ICANN does
business? It is examples such as these that demonstrate why the ICANN community
needs to weigh in on where ICANN’s human rights obligations start and stop,
before a court is invited to make those determinations.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Recommendation 7,
Scope of IRP:<u></u><u></u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Board previously expressed concerns about the IRP being
used for substantive appeals from process-specific expert panels, and notes the
apparent agreement on the CCWG-Accountability to remove the expert appeals
language from the scope of the IRP. Even
with this removal, the Board notes that any violation of the ICANN Articles of
Incorporation or Bylaws that occurs in conjunction with the consideration of an
expert panel can appropriately be the basis of an IRP. The Board has the
following additional comments:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ol type="1" style="margin-top:0in" start="1">
<li class="MsoNormal">The IRP should not be used
to determine what documents are to be released as part of ICANN’s
Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP). If a DIDP response is in
violation of ICANN’s Bylaws/AoI, then an IRP can lie on the grounds of a
Bylaws/AoI violation. The Board
notes that a more substantive appeal process for the DIDP could be
developed as part of the DIDP review in WS2. The development of a substantive DIDP
appeal process was not previously identified as a WS1 effort.<u></u><u></u></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ol type="1" style="margin-top:0in" start="2">
<li class="MsoNormal">The Board supports the
CWG-Stewardship contingency that the IRP is made available as part of the
accountability for the performance of the naming function work by PTI. The
implementation of this must be done carefully so as to not confuse ICANN’s
obligations with PTI’s obligations.<u></u><u></u></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ol type="1" style="margin-top:0in" start="3">
<li class="MsoNormal">The Board also supports
the request from the IAB that the protocol parameters are excluded from
the IRP. <u></u><u></u></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ol type="1" style="margin-top:0in" start="4">
<li class="MsoNormal">The Board notes that there
should be a broad range of participants for the work of the IRP
implementation team (including jurists and those versed in international
arbitration). <u></u><u></u></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ol type="1" style="margin-top:0in" start="5">
<li class="MsoNormal">The Board discourages the
use of exemptions to the already limited world of “loser pays” outcomes of
IRPs, such as a proposed exemption for non-profit entities, as there
should not be incentive for a certain group of complainants to more easily
bring IRPs if they are not faced with the potential recourse for bringing
IRPs on suspect grounds.<u></u><u></u></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Recommendation 4,
Scope of Community IRP:<u></u><u></u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><u></u> <u></u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Board reiterates its concerns regarding the inclusion of
expert panel appeals and substantive DIDP appeals, as stated in regards to
Recommendation 7. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Board appreciates the community discussion regarding a
carve-out of the Community IRP as it relates to PDP outcomes. The Board notes that, particularly with a
threshold of 3 SOs or ACs, there other potential for the filing of a Community
IRP to pit parts of the community against other parts of the community, such as
countering the Board’s acceptance of advice from Advisory Committees. The Board encourages the CCWG-Accountability
to see if there are additional protections that can be introduced so that
community resources are not used to challenge properly taken actions from
another part of the community.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p></p>
</p></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>