[CCWG-ACCT] Report on Lawyers Call re Human Rights
aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in
Fri Jan 22 10:44:46 UTC 2016
No, I was referring to the ICANN bylaws. There is no formal commitment to
respect HR in the ICANN bylaws, and given the HR implications of ICANN
policies, it's essential to at least have this explicit commitment.
As I mentioned previously, this commitment sets us up for further
discussion in WS2. While it would have been ideal to have the FOI as well
right now, the next best alternative is to at least have the commitment in
place while we work out the details of the FOI and how to bind ICANN to
specific instruments. As Kavouss said, these details are to be discussed in
I'm not sure what exactly you meant by your point on corrupt politicians.
:) But I do support the need to put down a commitment on HR in WS1. And
with the redline language proposed, the risk of a premature IRP is also
Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow
Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi |
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 22 January 2016 at 14:07, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2016 8:56 a.m., "Aarti Bhavana" <aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in>
> > CCWG intends to at least have this commitment in place in WS1, since it
> isn't explicitly stated anywhere.
> 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.
> > 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...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community