[CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 6 – Human Rights (first reading)
Niels ten Oever
lists at nielstenoever.net
Tue Jan 12 06:46:56 UTC 2016
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Thanks for this Thomas.,
So if I understand you correctly the lawyers said that people _might_
sue ICANN (not sure on which this is based, did the lawyers substantiate
this?), but the additon of human rights would not increase the chance
that they would win the case, am I correct?
On 01/12/2016 06:46 AM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> Dear Niels, all,
> While written feedback from our lawyers is pending, they have
indicated to us that they do not see additional risks. However, it is
possible that the mere mentioning of HR is perceived as an invitation to
raise claims against the organization, against which ICANN might need to
> We should have our discussion in the light of this scenario.
> rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
> Am 11.01.2016 um 22:57 schrieb Niels ten Oever
<lists at nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>:
> Dear co-chairs,
> Thanks a lot for this. Nonetheless there are some issues with the
document you attached to your email:
> 0. Did we already hear back from the lawyers on the folllwing questions:
> In their comment to the 3rd CCWG draft report the ICANN Board has
> raised concerns that the proposed inclusion of language in the bylaws
> with respect to human rights might lead to an increased risk of ICANN
> being exposed to legal claims or even law suits.
> We would appreciate if you could provide us with a brief assessment
> whether the inclusion of these bylaws would increase the risk of ICANN
> being exposed to legal claims or even law suits vis a vis the current
> situation (taking into account the existing obligations under article
> 4 of ICANNs articles of incorporation), and if so, how such risk could
> be mitigated.
> If not, I am not sure how useful it is to have this discussion now.
Unless we're having the discussion on the basis of the premisse that the
lawyers had already checked the text before we submitted it for comment
and we thus can conclude that the risks that are implied by the board
are not realistic.
> 1. Concerning 2a - Why is the GPI discussion conflated with the human
rights discussion? I don't think it will help solve either of the issues.
> 2. Concerning 2b - I think 'defer' is meant here?
> Looking forward to the discussion in a few hours.
> On 01/11/2016 05:01 PM, Alice Jansen wrote:
> > _Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT
> > In preparation for your R/ecommendation 6 – Human Rights
> (first reading)/ discussion scheduled for your call #76 - Tuesday,
> 12 January 2016 (06:00 – 09:00 UTC) - please find attached the
> material to review.
> > Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you
> may have in advance of the call.
> > Thank you
> > Mathieu, Thomas, León
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community