[CCWG-ACCT] Human Rights draft text for third reading

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Nigel,

I am on record that I do not agree with watering this down.

el

On 2016-01-26 15:46, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> I think the consensus is that ICANN should, before it is permitted to
> transition, make an unequivocal strategic committment to internationally
> accepted human rights standard. That is the baseline.
> 
> I am content to allow HR issues NOT to affect IRPs, for example until as
> Framework, and detailed bylaws can be developed, e.g. immediately post
> transiation PROVIDED there is a solemn and binding committent to do that.
> 
> What I cannot accept, however, is that human rights are defined by
> applicable US law, which only implements human rights piecemeal.
> 
> 
> N
> 
> (You can just see capital punishment for an example of how 'applicable
> law' permits what is unconditionally rejected by international human
> rights standards)/
> 
> On 26/01/16 13:36, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> Dear Nigel
>> May you please be more specific on how including necessary high level
>> materials / text in the transitional Bylaws and deferring the exact
>> texts to be  further developped once the frame work of interpretation of
>> HR is fully developped and approved would result to
>> Quote
>> /"it removes all legalobligations on ICANN to respect internationally
>> accepted human rights principles, since they do not form part of
>> applicable law in California."/
>> Unquote
>> //You have noted that after many hours of discussions there is no
>> agreement for the full text to be included in the Bylaws as definitive
>> nor any consensus to totally postpoe it to WS2.
>> Some middle ground is being emerged as consensus
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>>
>> 2016-01-26 14:23 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net
>> <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>>:
>>
>>     The text is overcomplicated and it appears to me that it removes all
>>     legalobligations on ICANN to respect internationally accepted human
>>     rights principles, since they do not form part of applicable law in
>>     California.
>>
>>     If that is what the CCWG wants, I am disappointed.
[...]
-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/