<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Nigle </div><div>What text you propose?</div><div>Where you want to put the ICANN Commitment?</div><div>Regards</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-26 14:53 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na" target="_blank">el@lisse.na</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Nigel,<br>
<br>
I am on record that I do not agree with watering this down.<br>
<br>
el<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
On 2016-01-26 15:46, Nigel Roberts wrote:<br>
> I think the consensus is that ICANN should, before it is permitted to<br>
> transition, make an unequivocal strategic committment to internationally<br>
> accepted human rights standard. That is the baseline.<br>
><br>
> I am content to allow HR issues NOT to affect IRPs, for example until as<br>
> Framework, and detailed bylaws can be developed, e.g. immediately post<br>
> transiation PROVIDED there is a solemn and binding committent to do that.<br>
><br>
> What I cannot accept, however, is that human rights are defined by<br>
> applicable US law, which only implements human rights piecemeal.<br>
><br>
><br>
> N<br>
><br>
> (You can just see capital punishment for an example of how 'applicable<br>
> law' permits what is unconditionally rejected by international human<br>
> rights standards)/<br>
><br>
> On 26/01/16 13:36, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>
>> Dear Nigel<br>
>> May you please be more specific on how including necessary high level<br>
>> materials / text in the transitional Bylaws and deferring the exact<br>
>> texts to be further developped once the frame work of interpretation of<br>
>> HR is fully developped and approved would result to<br>
>> Quote<br>
>> /"it removes all legalobligations on ICANN to respect internationally<br>
>> accepted human rights principles, since they do not form part of<br>
>> applicable law in California."/<br>
>> Unquote<br>
>> //You have noted that after many hours of discussions there is no<br>
>> agreement for the full text to be included in the Bylaws as definitive<br>
>> nor any consensus to totally postpoe it to WS2.<br>
>> Some middle ground is being emerged as consensus<br>
>> Regards<br>
>> Kavouss<br>
>><br>
>> 2016-01-26 14:23 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a>>>:<br>
>><br>
>> The text is overcomplicated and it appears to me that it removes all<br>
>> legalobligations on ICANN to respect internationally accepted human<br>
>> rights principles, since they do not form part of applicable law in<br>
>> California.<br>
>><br>
>> If that is what the CCWG wants, I am disappointed.<br>
</div></div>[...]<br>
--<br>
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)<br>
el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: <a href="tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733" value="+264811246733">+264 81 124 6733</a> (cell)<br>
PO Box 8421 \ /<br>
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/<br>
<span>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</span><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>
</blockquote></div><br></div>