[CCWG-ACCT] (no subject)

Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Fri Jan 15 10:07:31 UTC 2016

Seun, Sam, All,

« option c » is the following :

“Adopt adjusted bylaw language as part of WS1 to clarify that it can only be 
enforced or used in an IRP once the FoI is approved (Such as : “This 
articles becomes effective 30 days after approval of the FoI…”).”



De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Seun 
Envoyé : vendredi 15 janvier 2016 06:14
À : Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambia
Cc : ICANN-Adler; Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community at icann.org; 
ACCT-Staff (acct-staff at icann.org); Sidley ICANN CCWG 
(sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com)
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] (no subject)

Hello Leon,

It may be good to post here what "option c" text looks like. Secondly, I 
believe legal are only to provide legal opinion and I think the question you 
ask may be better directed to the board.


On 14 Jan 2016 22:09, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> 

Hi Sam,

Thanks for this input. Would you feel comfortable with option c on human 

Best regards,


El 14/01/2016, a las 2:22 p.m., Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org> 

Thanks for this note.  I provide the following reaction in my role as an 
attorney with ICANN.

The concern raised by the Board in its comments was not solely focused on 
the issue of increased potential for lawsuits or IRPs.  Rather, the Board 
focused on the impact of opening up ICANN to suits or IRPs based on human 
rights issues prior to having the framework for consideration of ICANN’s 
role in respecting human rights.   As Bruce explained on the 12 January 2015 
call, not having a framework leaves either courts or IRP panels to determine 
how human rights fit into ICANN’s mission.  Leaving ICANN’s mission open to 
that type of external definitional work seems counter to all the effort of 
the CCWG-Accountability to confirm ICANN’s narrow and limited mission.

Including undefined commitments to human rights in the Bylaws without the 
framework to guide courts or IRP panels in how they should consider the 
scope of human rights commitments in ICANN, creates a risk for the entire 
community.  CCWG Counsel’s suggestion that IRP usage could be limited, by 
example, through “preclud[ing] claims of human rights violations that are 
not grounded in a specific violation of an applicable law”, still leaves the 
question of what law would be applicable?  How do we know that the laws that 
will be relied upon are respectful of ICANN’s limited mission?

The question isn’t really “will ICANN be subject to more suits?”  As CCWG 
counsel noted, the potential of suit always exists.  The potential of IRPs 
being brought on human rights grounds is probably increased if there is a 
specific Bylaws mention of human rights.  However, these are not where the 
real risks occur.  The question that should be considered is “Does the 
community wish to leave the definition of ICANN’s role in human rights to 
Courts or IRP panels?".  Also, it is important to note that the Board’s 
comments do not remove the possibility of human rights being referred to in 
the Bylaws, but rather propose that consideration of that placement should 
happen after a framework is completed.

I look forward to continuing this conversation with the CCWG.



From: "Gregory, Holly" < <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com> 
holly.gregory at sidley.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 4:28 PM
To: Mathieu Weill < <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>, 
Thomas Rickert < <mailto:thomas at rickert.net> thomas at rickert.net>, León 
Sánchez Ambía < <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>, " 
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> 
accountability-cross-community at icann.org" < 
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> 
accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Cc: "ACCT-Staff ( <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org> acct-staff at icann.org)" < 
<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org> acct-staff at icann.org>, Sidley ICANN CCWG < 
<mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com> sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler 
< <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com> ICANN at adlercolvin.com>, "'Rosemary E. Fei'" 
< <mailto:rfei at adlercolvin.com> rfei at adlercolvin.com>, Samantha Eisner < 
<mailto:samantha.eisner at icann.org> samantha.eisner at icann.org>
Subject: <no subject>

Dear CCWG Co-Chairs,  Members and Participants and ICANN Staff,

Attached please find our memo responding to the certified question of 
January 11, 2016 regarding litigation risks related to the proposed human 
rights bylaws provisions.  Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary

Partner and Co-Chair
Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice

Sidley Austin LLP
+1 212 839 5853 <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853>
 <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com> holly.gregory at sidley.com

This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is 
privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any 
attachments and notify us


Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160115/38d226cb/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list