[CCWG-ACCT] Report on Lawyers Call re Human Rights

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Jan 21 08:36:52 UTC 2016

Dear Holley,

Thank you very much for explanation and further clarifications.

In fact the modified option c which closed to be emerging saying exactly
the same thing due to the fact that

CCWG retains the text  as contained in the initial 3rd proposal by adding
the following:

“However i)) the effective date of coming into force of this part  of
Bylaws (  provisions/language relating to  the Human Rights ) are postponed
until the FOI are prepared, finalized and approved as part of work Stream

ii) The IRP process will not be available  in regard with Human Right until
the Work Stream 2 effort to further articulate the human rights Framework
for Interpretation is finalized -

I prefer not to refer to " Dorming or Dormant* Bylaws " AS THESE TERMS ARE



2016-01-21 8:12 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>:

> So long as the 'applicable law' clause remains, ICANN will have NO legal
> obligations to respect human rights, post transition, on a literal
> construction.
> Therefore the proposed addition, whilst harmless, is perfectly otiose.
> There are many lawyers involved in proposing the 'applicable law' language.
> I cannot believe you do not know that there is NO 'applicable law' once
> ICANN is no longer an instrumentality of the state.
> Otherwise please give an example of a single legal provision on human
> rights that would fall under 'applicable law'.
> Just one.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160121/2eef31d0/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list