[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mission statement and human rights

Niels ten Oever lists at nielstenoever.net
Thu Jan 28 11:02:49 UTC 2016

I think we should indeed keep the discussion clear by discussing issues
the board might have the current text, based on legal analysis,
case-law, examples or otherwise.

If the CCWG doesn't receive this, I think we should go ahead as
concluded in the last call.



PS I would of course very much welcome any concrete commitment of the
board to human rights and I think it could strengthen the work we'll do
in WS2 when the bylaw is in place.

On 01/28/2016 10:51 AM, Tropina, Tatiana wrote:
> Dear all,
> I believe that the commitment of the board to support human rights
> principles is indeed a great constructive move that can be
> wholeheartedly welcome. However, if it is going to be done to divert
> the discussion from the main question, namely: what are the risks
> that the board sees if the bylaw text suggested on the last call
> (dormant bylaw) will be adopted? - I don't think it can be considered
> as a proper way forward. It has been discussed many times that
> commitment to human rights is a community exercise, I doubt that the
> top down commitment can replace the proper bylaw. Moreover, I am not
> sure that a resolution to respect human rights adopted in urgency to
> avoid the bylaw is a good substitute for the approach CCWG suggested
> after many hours of discussions and many attempts to find a solution
> that will address everyone's concern. If the board's resolution is
> what we are getting as an alternative to the bylaw, I am not certain
> it can be considered as a compromise. I am ready for constructive
> discussions, but when top-down approach replaces the community
> exercise I rather become cautious and concerned.
> Best regards, Tatiana ________________________________________ From:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of
> Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] Sent: 28 January 2016
> 10:04 To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org; Bruce Tonkin 
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mission statement and human
> rights
> Bruce, Your Resolution needs to capture major elements of the
> Recommendation regarding HF WITH A CLEAR ONE OR MORE RESOLVES TO
> provide the firm committment. Regards Kavouss
> 2016-01-28 8:58 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>: Yes 
> You are absolutely right. I can not agree more than what you very
> well described, But THERE ARE MAJOR DIVERGENCE OF VIEWS . 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<mailto: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<mailto: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
>>>> CCWG IMMEDIATELY) enabling CCWG whether it 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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> _______________________________________________ 
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list