[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 - Human Rights - 1st reading conclusions

[Avri Doria]

+1

On 15-Jan-16 12:03, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> Dear co-chairs (an all),
>
> I am quite surprised by your proposal to invite members and board to
> consider option C since WP4 and CCWG achieved consensus on option A,
> which was reinforced by the independent lawyers advice. I really don't
> think this work should be disregarded.
>
> The ICANN lawyers did not provide examples, case-law or other documents
> to outline any risk. So even though I am very willing to discuss, I see
> no reason to only consider option C and I am very surprised that you as
> co-chairs argue for that option even though consensus was reached
> earlier on option A. As I said in my previous email, it is not
> reasonable to consider option C before we agree that we won't proceed
> with the option A.
>
> All the best,
>
> Niels
>
> On 01/15/2016 05:26 PM, Alice Jansen wrote:
>> _Sent on behalf of CoChairs _
>> _
>> _
>> Please find below the main conclusions of our deliberations during call
>> #76. The updated document is attached.
>>
>> 1.Agreement to rely on target dates instead of hard deadlines, in line
>> with general approach agreed for WS2 
>> 2. Discussed comments (including Icann Board, RrSG…) requesting that the
>> inclusion of human rights language into the bylaws be delayed until the
>> proposed framework of interpretation was completed or even only be
>> considered in Work Stream 2. 
>>
>>     a.Independent lawyer input has been provided and concludes : While
>>     the addition of the proposed human rights bylaw provision should not
>>     increase the exposure of ICANN to legal liability, we recognize that
>>     special interest groups and individuals might seek to bring
>>     non-meritorious claims, but the risk of meritless claims is already
>>     a risk that ICANN faces.   
>>     b. Board clarified that concern included risk that IRP would
>>     interpret the Bylaw language and create “case law policy” while the
>>     FoI is finalized. 
>>     c. Consider Lawyer input suggestion as follows : 
>>
>>         i. “ /expressly limiting the jurisdiction of any internal
>>         dispute resolution systems within ICANN (such as the IRP) to
>>         preclude claims of human rights violations that are not grounded
>>         in a specific violation of an applicable law”./
>>
>> 3. Members and Board are invited to consider whether option c) could be
>> an acceptable way forward
>>
>>     a. Confirm recommendation bylaw language as part of WS1, despite
>>     concerns expressed 
>>     b. Defer bylaw language adoption to WS2, when FoI is finalized
>>
>>     c. 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…”). 
>>
>>
>> Second reading is planned for Tuesday, 19 January.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Mathieu, Thomas, León
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus