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

Schaefer, Brett Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
Fri Jan 22 12:27:28 UTC 2016


With respect, your summary is inaccurate. A number of people obviously do not share those views. Paul and I, for instance, are on record having serious misgivings about the HR commitment being in the bylaws: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136438/4.%20b)%20Heritage%20Foundation%20Additional%20Comment.pdf?api=v2.

My preference is to move this entirely to WS2, which the current debate is only strengthening.

I know that many, perhaps a majority, disagree. But if opinions were as universal as you indicated, I would think this issue would be resolved by now.



Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002

On Jan 22, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>> wrote:

I think that we are all in agreement that the commitment to respect human rights should be included in the ICANN bylaws together with the FoI by Work Stream 2. We are also all in agreement that a recommendation to include those commitments and FoI in the ICANN bylaws should be part of the Work Stream 1 final proposal. The issue is: should it be an interim bylaw in which the commitments are included without the frame of interpretation before the transition.

What is the use of the interim bylaw if the FoI is not there yet? How can we avoid the risk to have those commitments applied to the content which is not in the remit of ICANN?
We are speaking about a period of a few months between the transition and the completion of the work stream 2 work.

If it is so dangerous to stay for this short period without the commitments in the bylaws, why we don’t create another interim bylaw that include the accountability mechanisms for the community that we said we will address them in WS 2? We are about to transfer a part of the powers from the ICANN board to the community, so the accountability mechanisms for the community are too important, and yet, we accepted to stay this short period without them in the ICANN bylaws.

I’m not a lawyer, and can’t say if the language proposed by Holly and Rosemary (in red) would really make the interim bylaw dormant till the FoI is developed. If it does, I will support it even if I find it useless to create an interim bylaw that will absolutely stay dormant.

Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
            +216 52 385 114

Le 22 janv. 2016 à 09:54, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> a écrit :

Dear All,
The discussions go far beyound from what was envisaged.
I tend to agree with Nigel view points
There will be ample opprtunities to discuss.analyze all aspects of the matter within the FWI AT ws2

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list