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

[Seun Ojedeji]

On 22 Jan 2016 8:56 a.m., "Aarti Bhavana" <aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in>
wrote:
> CCWG intends to at least have this commitment in place in WS1, since it
isn't explicitly stated anywhere.
>
SO:
I assume the "anywhere" referred to here implies other non-icann
organisations that have such interests in human right. As to the intent of
WS1, I am not sure what you stated above is the intent, especially if
"respect" implies a binding requirement.

>
The framework of interpretation, to be developed in WS2, will make clear
how we go about the implementation. In the mean time, ICANN's obligations
to obey domestic law (applicable law) continues, unchanged.
>
SO: Isn't the lack of framework an important reason why we should not get
any HR commitment from ICANN other than the commitment to work with the
community to ensure that the framework is developed in WS2.

It's interesting how this HR topic has stylishly become a major topic in
WS1, perhaps it was a mistake that WP4 was setup in the first place. That
act and its current resultant effect is now making some of us sound/look as
if we don't care about HR as much as others, which obviously in not the
case. I for one care about HR but not without having appropriate scope of
understanding/implementation in an environment like that of ICANN.

In my county politicians accused of corrupt practice gets remanded in
prison awaiting trial but during the period lawyers of same politician file
violation of HR law suit. It becomes difficult for a typical citizen like
me to find reason on such HR for an individual that has denied many citizen
right to livelihood by embezzling public funds. So my point is that we need
to carefully address human rights issues within ICANN, otherwise it could
cause more problems than we thought/think we are solving.

Regards
>
>
> 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 |
>
> On 22 January 2016 at 13:06, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
>>
>> And ICANN deals with entities in virtually every country in the world,
>> so Universal Human Rights should cover it...
>>
>> el
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2016-01-22 09:19, Nigel Roberts 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.
>> [...]
>> --
>> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
>> el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
>> PO Box 8421             \     /
>> Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160122/03908d73/attachment.html>