<div dir="ltr"><div>Nigel,</div><div>Yes we should be careful .</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-28 13:46 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Kavouss<br>
<br>
I'm not entirely sure, but I THINK we are in violent agreement.<br>
<br>
I am content if there is a high-level statement in the by-laws. I am most certainly objecting loudly if either by accident or clever drafting (I beleive the latter more likely) the UDHR rights do not have to be respected by the Corporation.<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 28/01/16 12:13, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
Nigel<br>
We do not release the Board once the framework of interpretation is prepared-and approved as results of WS2. We mention that in the bylaw the need that ICANN MUST RESPECT HR but we postpone the exact text reflecting the case . In the meantime , we consider the Board,s Res. Providing a firm commitment to fully respect, observe and implement the referenced HR once we receive that Res. And approve with out without amendment<br>
Regards<br>
Kavouss<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
On 28 Jan 2016, at 12:18, Nigel Roberts <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
With respect, I disagree 100% with Tatiana's position.<br>
<br>
Whilst I have serious reservations -- based on historical behaviour of the then Board -- that a commitment based on a Board committment will be upheld, I still think that trusting the Board to deliver on this in a Framework/WS2 is preferable to a by-law designed by committee of the loudest objectors, which on a strict construction (i.e. taking a strict legal interpretation) complete relieves the corporation of any obligations to respect human rights *other than those right that have "domestic horizontal application") .<br>
<br>
We need to place it at the heart of ICANN's approach to its special world-wide role.<br>
<br>
I suggest WS2 may even examine the UDHR in detail and compare it to ICANN@s work. You will probably find that except for the three or four core Rights whic are REALLY important to ICANN;s work most of the others are either obviously inapplicable, or tritely applicable.<br>
<br>
I am therefore surprised to find myself largely agreeing with the Board's approach, than the dog's breakfast that proposal seems to have reached.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
On 28/01/16 11:02, Niels ten Oever wrote:<br>
I think we should indeed keep the discussion clear by discussing issues<br>
the board might have the current text, based on legal analysis,<br>
case-law, examples or otherwise.<br>
<br>
If the CCWG doesn't receive this, I think we should go ahead as<br>
concluded in the last call.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Niels<br>
<br>
PS I would of course very much welcome any concrete commitment of the<br>
board to human rights and I think it could strengthen the work we'll do<br>
in WS2 when the bylaw is in place.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
On 01/28/2016 10:51 AM, Tropina, Tatiana wrote:<br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
I believe that the commitment of the board to support human rights<br>
principles is indeed a great constructive move that can be<br>
wholeheartedly welcome. However, if it is going to be done to divert<br>
the discussion from the main question, namely: what are the risks<br>
that the board sees if the bylaw text suggested on the last call<br>
(dormant bylaw) will be adopted? - I don't think it can be considered<br>
as a proper way forward. It has been discussed many times that<br>
commitment to human rights is a community exercise, I doubt that the<br>
top down commitment can replace the proper bylaw. Moreover, I am not<br>
sure that a resolution to respect human rights adopted in urgency to<br>
avoid the bylaw is a good substitute for the approach CCWG suggested<br>
after many hours of discussions and many attempts to find a solution<br>
that will address everyone's concern. If the board's resolution is<br>
what we are getting as an alternative to the bylaw, I am not certain<br>
it can be considered as a compromise. I am ready for constructive<br>
discussions, but when top-down approach replaces the community<br>
exercise I rather become cautious and concerned.<br>
<br>
Best regards, Tatiana ________________________________________ From:<br>
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
[<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] on behalf of<br>
Kavouss Arasteh [<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>] Sent: 28 January 2016<br>
10:04 To: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>; Bruce Tonkin<br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mission statement and human<br>
rights<br>
<br>
Bruce, Your Resolution needs to capture major elements of the<br>
Recommendation regarding HF WITH A CLEAR ONE OR MORE RESOLVES TO<br>
provide the firm committment. Regards Kavouss<br>
<br>
2016-01-28 8:58 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh<br>
<<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>>: Yes<br>
You are absolutely right. I can not agree more than what you very<br>
well described, But THERE ARE MAJOR DIVERGENCE OF VIEWS . We have two<br>
options : One which was on the table by CCWG as a possible emerged<br>
consensus Another as the Board mentioned BUT to be accompanied by a<br>
strong REsolution as a firm committments to respect ,observe and<br>
implement the fundamental right as you mentined, That Board's<br>
Resolution yet to be drafted agreed by Board ,examined by CCWG and<br>
ensorded by CCWG Regards Kavouss<br>
<br>
2016-01-28 5:42 GMT+01:00 Seth Johnson<br>
<<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com" target="_blank">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com" target="_blank">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>>>:<br>
Seriously need to say fundamental rights are the question. Treaty<br>
human rights are weak, and the concern has to be that the transition<br>
involves a loss of the strict standard that relates to fundamental<br>
rights. This might have been the standard the NTIA would have been<br>
expected to apply in its semiregular reviews of ICANN. But note,<br>
since there's no reference to the constitution (of the US, just by<br>
happenstance, could have been any other country with a<br>
constitutional basis for rights) but just rights like free speech,<br>
the NTIA is free to just say all they would have applied would have<br>
been the standards that apply internationally.<br>
<br>
The UN always says "human rights" and "fundamental freedoms" rather<br>
than "fundamental rights" because saying fundamental raises the<br>
issue of the fact that treaty-based rights are weak.<br>
<br>
The international standard is really weak. There's no way to<br>
overrule a treaty on the basis of another treaty, because even if one<br>
is on human rights and another is on, say, fighting terror, both are<br>
enacted by the same "body" -- participating governments. So the<br>
standard is at best how do the two treaties interact and balance<br>
against each other.<br>
<br>
If you just issue a statement on human rights, they've conned the<br>
group again, all along keeping the discussion narrowly focused on<br>
the issue of how to structure ICANN -- which never could have<br>
addressed the implications of the transition, from the start -- as I<br>
think you are seeing.<br>
<br>
<br>
Seth Johnson<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Bruce Tonkin<br>
<<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>>><br>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
Hello Kavouss,<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
For the Human Rights issue, one suggestion was to follow the<br>
Board's request ( Not to include any thing about HR in the<br>
transitional/ intermediate Bylaws but receiving the Board's<br>
FIRM Commitment IN A BOARD'S RESOLUTION APPROVED AND SENT TO<br>
CCWG IMMEDIATELY) enabling CCWG whether it could endorse that<br>
and annex it to the Bylaws to cool down those who are worried<br>
about the HR.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for this suggestion. It is under active consideration by<br>
the Board.<br>
<br>
One possible option is that we pass a resolution in support of<br>
human rights principles in our meeting in Singapore next week.<br>
<br>
I will provide an update next week.<br>
<br>
Regards, Bruce Tonkin<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<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 class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">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>
</blockquote></blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>