[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Human rights as a core value Fwd: Re: [] Mission, Commitments and Core Values

[Christopher Wilkinson]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Human rights as a core value Fwd: Re: [] Mission, Commitments and Core Values
> Date: 18 Jul 2015 20:50:59 GMT+02:00
> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org Accountability" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Cc: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>
> 
> Actually, Article 4 of the Articles of Incorporation states:
> 
> <<4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law  … >>
> 
> The reference to local law is essential for all non-US jurisdictions. It should be maintained in all related discussions, including that, below.
> 
> CW
> 
> 
> On 18 Jul 2015, at 19:30, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
> 
>> Becky:
>> 
>> It's Article 4 of the Articles of Incorporation.
>> 
>> In ICM -v- ICANN, HHJ Tevrizian (retd.) wrote
>> 
>>> 140.  In the view of the Panel, ICANN, in carrying out its activities “in
>>> conformity with the relevant principles of international law,” is charged with
>>> acting consistently with relevant principles of international law, including
>>> the general principles of law recognized as a source of international law.
>>> 
>>> That follows from the terms of Article 4 of its Articles of Incorporation and
>>> from the intentions that animated their inclusion in the Articles, an intention
>>> that the Panel understands to have been to subject ICANN to relevant
>>> international legal principles because of its governance of an intrinsically
>>> international resource of immense importance to global communications and
>>> economies.   Those intentions might not be realized were Article 4
>>> interpreted to exclude the applicability of general principles of law.
>> 
>> Now were this a judgment in a common-law jurisdiction, one might concede that the above remarks of Judge Tevrizian are persuasive rather than binding precedent (but that was always going be the case anyway, as it isn't a court judgment; rather a decision in an arbitration).
>> 
>> Nonetheless, the eminence and experience of the author, coupled with what clearly is his very high-level of understanding of ICANN and its role leads me to believe this is an accurate construction of the meaning of Art. 4, and I so submit.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150718/aa8def1c/attachment-0001.html>