[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mission statement and human rights

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Jan 28 12:13:07 UTC 2016

We do not release the Board once the framework of interpretation is prepared-and approved as results of WS2. We mention that in the bylaw the need that ICANN MUST RESPECT HR but we postpone the exact text reflecting the case . In the meantime , we consider the Board,s Res. Providing a firm commitment to fully respect, observe and implement the referenced HR once we receive that Res. And approve with out without amendment

Sent from my iPhone

> On 28 Jan 2016, at 12:18, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
> With respect, I disagree 100% with Tatiana's position.
> Whilst I have serious reservations -- based on historical behaviour of the then Board -- that a commitment based on a Board committment will be upheld, I still think that trusting the Board to deliver on this in a Framework/WS2 is preferable to a by-law designed by committee of the loudest objectors, which on a strict construction (i.e. taking a strict legal interpretation) complete relieves the corporation of any obligations to respect human rights *other than those right that have "domestic horizontal application") .
> We need to place it at the heart of ICANN's approach to its special world-wide role.
> I suggest WS2 may even examine the UDHR in detail and compare it to ICANN at s work. You will probably find that except for the three or four core Rights whic are REALLY important to ICANN;s work most of the others are either obviously inapplicable, or tritely applicable.
> I am therefore surprised to find myself largely agreeing with the Board's approach, than the dog's breakfast that proposal seems to have reached.
>> On 28/01/16 11:02, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> 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.
>> Best,
>> Niels
>> 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>
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list