[CCWG-ACCT] Human Rights

Thu Mar 3 21:58:11 UTC 2016

Dear All
European decision in this regard could only be applied by 28 countries Member of EU
Extraterritoriality Law can not be applied elsewhere
Regards
Kavouss   

Sent from my iPhone

> On 3 Mar 2016, at 21:49, Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com> wrote:
> 
> Martin - just to be clear the European Court of Justice introduced the extraterritoriality concept into EU law making with regard to human rights standards. Take for example the most recent ruling about the validity of the Safe Harbor agreement. 
> 
> Erika
> 
>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk> wrote:
>> Nigel, you seem to be advocating US interpretation of human rights, which in turn would imply a degree of extraterritoriality.
>> 
>> That should not be the case for ccTLDs as Eberhard points out, but it might be a big issue for geo-TLDs, too.
>> 
>> I think that "applicable law" is the best formulation for where we are and WS2 can have the joy of interpreting what are the implications of that.  Let's leave such a difficult discussion to then.
>> 
>> Martin 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Martin Boyle
>> Senior Policy Advisor
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> nominet.uk    DD: +44 (0)1865 332251
>> Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, OX4 4DQ, United Kingdom
>> 
>> 
>> On 2 Mar 2016, at 13:58, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
>> 
>>> And,
>>> 
>>> it does so for gTLDs only.
>>> 
>>> el
>>> 
>>>> On 2016-03-02 15:42 , Nigel Roberts wrote:
>>>> As you rightly say, I am foreshadowing WS2.
>>>> But I am also renewing my strong objection to the "applicable law"
>>>> formulation, for the following reason.
>>>> It's quite valid to comment, in response, that ICANN *already* regulates
>>>> the takedown of domain names in the protection of third-party rights -
>>>> the protection of intellectual property.
>>>> That is all well and good, and is a worthy step in the protection of
>>>> that person/organisations rights under (for example) Art. 1, Prot.1 of
>>>> the ECHR -- provided it is balanced against the rights to free
>>>> expression and due process.
>>>> But it's not hard to see that the "applicable law" scenarion could be
>>>> misused to impose controls on content.
>>>> For example, the right to privacy and the right to free expression
>>>> intersect in different places in different countries.
>>>> This is the well-known "margin of appreciation" in Human Rights
>>>> jurisprudence.
>>>> So, ICANN, by binding itself to 'applicable law' would potentially bind
>>>> itself to breaching the First Amendment, by having a by-law obligation
>>>> to 'applicable law' in say the UK (libel), France (celebrity) or China
>>>> (respect for authority).
>>>>> On 02/03/16 13:20, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
>>>>> Hi Nigel,
>>>>> This will be an interesting discussion on our WS2 work plan.
>>>>> I fail to see why or how ICANN would be obliged to develop such
>>>>> policies as ICANN is not an entity with (legal) powers to take down
>>>>> any kind of content. The only situation in which I see ICANN taking
>>>>> down a site, as opposed to a particular content within a website, is
>>>>> in case a Court ordered such take down which, in my mind at least,
>>>>> would be subject to different applicable norms in the context of
>>>>> international cooperation I think, and for that Court order to be
>>>>> escalated to ICANN level I would think it would need to be taken
>>>>> through the path of registrant-registrar-registry before even getting
>>>>> to ICANN but that is just an assumption, of course.
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> León
>>>>>> El 29/02/2016, a las 8:26 p.m., Nigel Roberts
>>>>>> <nigel at channelisles.net> escribió:
>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-35685999
>>>>>> This tells me that the right to free expression is one which ICANN
>>>>>> should respect, and not merely 'as required by applicable law'.
>>>>>> It seems to me that 'applicable law' here would have ICANN institute
>>>>>> policies allowing for takedown of the material that is contained in
>>>>>> the books referred to in this article, would it not?
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160303/8f91d752/attachment.html>