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

[Matthew Shears]

+ 1

On 15/01/2016 17:12, Avri Doria wrote:
> +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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987


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