[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mission statement and human rights

[Nigel Roberts]

No, I'm afraid not.

Human rights law is generally not a matter of domestic law at all.

Certainly not in dualist legal systems (such as the US and the UK) 
unless there is explicit domestic legislation (as in the UK) and even 
then is only applicable to 'emanations of the state', not private sector 
bodies.

So, as Bruch puts it, there's no applicable law, except that which ICANN 
adopts voluntarily (e.g. Article 4, the By-Laws, etc).

These apply because California law makes California corporations abide 
by their own constitutions.


On 29/01/16 12:21, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Do you believe that applicable law would be understood as the Californian or US Federal Law?
> Tks
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 29 Jan 2016, at 13:10, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
>>
>> EXACTLY!
>>
>> We are doing well here.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 29/01/16 12:07, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>>>>>   My problem with "applicable law" is that Human Rights are fundamental, whereas laws differ from country to country. And Human Rights can not be "diminished", for the lack of a better word, by the laws of a country.
>>>
>>>>>   So, if "applicable law" mean the Bylaws and not the law of any country or countries, lets's put this in, if only for avoidance of doubt.
>>>
>>> I would also expect that ICANN is already subject to "applicable" national laws - whether or not they are in the bylaws.
>>>
>>> So  a bylaw that states that ICANN is subject to applicable laws seems somewhat redundant.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bruce Tonkin
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>