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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Fri Jan 22 07:40:18 UTC 2016


Nigel,

It seems like you want ICANN  to act as if it were a government. I think
that's beyond even the most aggressive interpretation that has been
espoused of what we are trying to do here.

If nothing else, it shows how far we are from a common understanding of the
intent and effect of the Human Rights bylaw.

Greg

On Friday, January 22, 2016, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:

> Holly
>
> This clearly shows the source of the confusion. The laws you quote, are
> domestic US laws on specific issues (some of which do act to protect human
> rights)
>
> Domestic legal obligation obviouls do not need to be stated or quoted in
> the ByLaws, since they apply as a matter of domestic law.
>
> But none of the rights in the UDHR apply to ICANN as a private company,
> such as the right to a fair hearing, the right to property etc.
>
> As a private company, there is no obligation on ICANN, for example, to
> ensure fair hearing of parties affected by its decisions.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 22/01/16 01:35, Gregory, Holly wrote:
>
>> Just to clarify, laws that prohibit child labor, limit the hours that
>> employees may be required to work without receiving over-time pay, require
>> employers to refrain from limiting the ability of employees to freely
>> associate for the purpose of pursuing unionization, protect against
>> discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability, or other criteria
>> -- and there are more examples-- exist in many jurisdictions and are
>> examples of "applicable laws" that protect human rights.
>>
>> HOLLY J. GREGORY
>> Partner and Co-Chair
>> Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice
>>
>> Sidley Austin LLP
>> +1 212 839 5853
>> holly.gregory at sidley.com
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel
>> Roberts
>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:13 AM
>> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Report on Lawyers Call re Human Rights
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>> 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
>> immediately.
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160122/4d836da9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list