[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mission statement and human rights

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Jan 28 09:04:23 UTC 2016

Your Resolution needs to capture major elements of the Recommendation
regarding HF WITH A CLEAR ONE OR MORE RESOLVES TO provide the firm

2016-01-28 8:58 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> Yes
> You are absolutely right.
> I can not agree more than what you very well described, But THERE ARE
> We have two options :
> One which was on the table by CCWG as a possible emerged consensus
> Another as the Board mentioned BUT to be accompanied by a strong
> REsolution as a firm committments to respect ,observe and implement the
> fundamental right as you mentined, That Board's Resolution yet to be
> drafted agreed by Board ,examined by CCWG and ensorded by CCWG
> Regards
> Kavouss
> 2016-01-28 5:42 GMT+01:00 Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>:
>> Seriously need to say fundamental rights are the question.  Treaty
>> human rights are weak, and the concern has to be that the transition
>> involves a loss of the strict standard that relates to fundamental
>> rights.  This might have been the standard the NTIA would have been
>> expected to apply in its semiregular reviews of ICANN.  But note,
>> since there's no reference to the constitution (of the US, just by
>> happenstance, could have been any other country with a constitutional
>> basis for rights) but just rights like free speech, the NTIA is free
>> to just say all they would have applied would have been the standards
>> that apply internationally.
>> The UN always says "human rights" and "fundamental freedoms" rather
>> than "fundamental rights" because saying fundamental raises the issue
>> of the fact that treaty-based rights are weak.
>> The international standard is really weak.  There's no way to overrule
>> a treaty on the basis of another treaty, because even if one is on
>> human rights and another is on, say, fighting terror, both are enacted
>> by the same "body" -- participating governments.  So the standard is
>> at best how do the two treaties interact and balance against each
>> other.
>> If you just issue a statement on human rights, they've conned the
>> group again, all along keeping the discussion narrowly focused on the
>> issue of how to structure ICANN -- which never could have addressed
>> the implications of the transition, from the start -- as I think you
>> are seeing.
>> Seth Johnson
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Bruce Tonkin
>> <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
>> > Hello Kavouss,
>> >
>> >
>> >>>  For the Human Rights issue, one suggestion was to follow the Board's
>> request ( Not to include any thing about HR in the transitional/
>> intermediate Bylaws but receiving the Board's  FIRM Commitment IN A BOARD'S
>> could endorse that and annex it to the Bylaws to cool down those who are
>> worried about the HR.
>> >
>> > Thanks for this suggestion.   It is under active consideration by the
>> Board.
>> >
>> > One possible option is that we pass a resolution in support of human
>> rights principles in our meeting in Singapore next week.
>> >
>> > I will provide an update next week.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Bruce Tonkin
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20160128/5c6d2643/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list