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

Aarti Bhavana aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in
Fri Jan 22 10:35:05 UTC 2016

Hi Nigel,

The way I see it, the proposed language is to ensure that there is exists a
formal human rights commitment. How exactly this commitment is implemented
(for e.g., is there a commitment towards UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR, UNGP, ECHR,
etc) is something slated to be discussed in WS2. So while the bylaw
language does not do much by itself, it does create the path for further
development in WS2, which is absolutely necessary, since we don't know what
the post-transition ICANN environment will look like.



On 22 Jan 2016 1:58 pm, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:

> On 22/01/16 07:55, Aarti Bhavana wrote:
>> But the UDHR is non-binding. Further, these HR instruments apply only to
>> state actors, which is why it's essential for the ICANN bylaws to
>> categorically commit to respecting human rights. CCWG intends to at
>> least have this commitment in place in WS1, since it isn't explicitly
>> stated anywhere.
> Exactly. I fully support that position.
> But the qualifications proposed in the current draft, designed legally to
> limit ICANN to 'applicable law' appear to have the intention, and certainly
> would have the effect of entirely remove this commitment, since UDHR (or
> ECHR, or EU Charter) rights are not applicable law in dualist states, such
> as the USA.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160122/9ddb73b4/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list