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

Aarti Bhavana aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in
Sat Jan 16 05:42:20 UTC 2016


+1 Robin. We must at least discuss the views of the other stakeholders.



Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow
Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi |
Sector-14,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 965-464-6846 | Fax: (+91)
11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/>
|

On 16 January 2016 at 05:20, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> I agree and am concerned about the degree of automatic deference and
> preference for board desired outcomes over CCWG - Accountability
> participants and public comments in the organization of these discussions.
> For some reason, these discussions seem to each focus on the board
> objectives and comments and almost no attention to the comments of any
> other stakeholder.  Let’s not forget many members of the public filed
> comments last month, expecting them to be discussed and incorporated.  But
> it looks like the only concerns placed before us for consideration are the
> board comments/objectives.  Let’s not forget the others!
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
> > On Jan 15, 2016, at 9:03 AM, Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net>
> 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
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Niels ten Oever
> > Head of Digital
> >
> > Article 19
> > www.article19.org
> >
> > PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> >                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160116/e94b1aef/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list