[Wp4] Discrete issue: Which bylaws formulation

[Dr. Tatiana Tropina]

Nigel,
I think there is confusion about the matter we are actually trying to
discuss here, namely, which instruments should stay in the bracketed text.
You refer to UDHR - but it's not the issue. A reference to UDHR was
suggested in the group discussion and we decided that it will stay in
the bracketed text of the proposed bylaw language as one of the choices.
I am for more general bylaw language, but I can live the inclusion of
UDHR and other two legal instruments proposed because they reflect
international human rights law. So this bracketed text will stay in the
proposed language anyway.
The discussion here, however, focuses on the inclusion of the Ruggie
principles, not UDHR. And whatever issue is raised as a potential
concern - be it legal issue, potential liability or just simply the
absence of even a rough consensus between the members of the group on a
possible inclusion of Ruggie principles into the bylaw language and
possible consequences of such inclusion - it means, IMHO, that we can't
propose to include UN Guiding principles.
Proper legal instruments, such as UDHR, will stay in brackets as a
possible choice in any case.
That's how I see it.
Best regards
Tatiana

On 11/10/15 21:00, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> Paul
>
> What legal connection does ICANN have to ccTLDs that would make it
> potentially liable in the way you suggest.
>
> This is a serious question. You have raised it as a /legal/ issue here.
>
> I repeat my submission that to omit a reference to the applicable
> human rights standard (UDHR) instrument could potentially make ICANN
> liable under other instruments.
>
> On 11/10/15 19:51, Paul Twomey wrote:
>
>> ICANN being held legally liable for the actions of ccTLDs, RIRs and
> _______________________________________________
> Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4