Hi Nigel,
The way I see it, the proposed language is to ensure that there is exists a formal human rights commitment. How exactly this commitment is implemented (for e.g., is there a commitment towards UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR, UNGP, ECHR, etc) is something slated to be discussed in WS2. So while the bylaw language does not do much by itself, it does create the path for further development in WS2, which is absolutely necessary, since we don't know what the post-transition ICANN environment will look like.
Best,
Aarti
On 22/01/16 07:55, Aarti Bhavana wrote:
But the UDHR is non-binding. Further, these HR instruments apply only to
state actors, which is why it's essential for the ICANN bylaws to
categorically commit to respecting human rights. CCWG intends to at
least have this commitment in place in WS1, since it isn't explicitly
stated anywhere.
Exactly. I fully support that position.
But the qualifications proposed in the current draft, designed legally to limit ICANN to 'applicable law' appear to have the intention, and certainly would have the effect of entirely remove this commitment, since UDHR (or ECHR, or EU Charter) rights are not applicable law in dualist states, such as the USA.
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community