[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mission statement and human rights

Nigel Roberts nigel at channelisles.net
Thu Jan 28 14:05:26 UTC 2016


That is entirely wrong.

ICANN must simply respect human rights. That's it.


On 28/01/16 13:22, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:

> I am very much against making ICANN a human rights watchdog and what I
> am getting from your emails is that you are insisting on it.
> This is a clear no-go as we discussed at WP4 and CCWG.
>
> Best regards
> Tatiana
>
> On 28/01/16 14:14, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>> With respect, the point that there is no applicable law has NOT been
>> addressed, it has been ignored repeated.
>>
>> If ICANN does not accept the Human Rights principles voluntarily,
>> there is no applicable law that requires them to. That why a
>> commitment to do so is required, and it needs to be entrenched so that
>> a future ICANN Board.
>>
>> To understand why some of us outside the US are not convinced . .
>>
>>
>>
>> http://business-humanrights.org/en/bringing-rights-home-four-reasons-why-the-us-must-act-to-curb-rights-abuses-by-companies-domestically-not-just-abroad
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28/01/16 12:50, Matthew Shears wrote:
>>> I think we need to follow our process.  We have worked very hard to get
>>> to the point that we are at on HR.  We have, with the help of outside
>>> counsel, addressed the concerns that have been raised by various parts
>>> of the community.  Do we really need to pursue alternative paths that
>>> may not satisfy the CCWG and could add additional delays to our work?
>>> The CCWG has been discussing Human Rights in ICANN now for a
>>> considerable period of time and should bring Rec 6 to a close.
>>>
>>> On 28/01/2016 13:13, 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
>>>>>>>>>> FIRM Commitment IN A BOARD'S RESOLUTION APPROVED AND SENT TO
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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