[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mission statement and human rights

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Jan 28 12:52:17 UTC 2016

Yes we should be careful .

2016-01-28 13:46 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>:

> Kavouss
> I'm not entirely sure, but I THINK we are in violent agreement.
> I am content if there is a high-level statement in the by-laws. I am most
> certainly objecting loudly if either by accident or clever drafting (I
> beleive the latter more likely) the UDHR rights do not have to be respected
> by the Corporation.
> On 28/01/16 12:13, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> Nigel
>> 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
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160128/e03a5c62/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list