That is my understanding Niels. Best regards, León
El 12/01/2016, a las 12:46 a.m., Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net> escribió:
Firmado parte de PGP Thanks for this Thomas.,
So if I understand you correctly the lawyers said that people _might_ sue ICANN (not sure on which this is based, did the lawyers substantiate this?), but the additon of human rights would not increase the chance that they would win the case, am I correct?
Best,
Niels
On 01/12/2016 06:46 AM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Dear Niels, all, While written feedback from our lawyers is pending, they have indicated to us that they do not see additional risks. However, it is possible that the mere mentioning of HR is perceived as an invitation to raise claims against the organization, against which ICANN might need to defend itself.
We should have our discussion in the light of this scenario.
Best, Thomas
--- rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
Am 11.01.2016 um 22:57 schrieb Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists@nielstenoever.net>>:
Dear co-chairs,
Thanks a lot for this. Nonetheless there are some issues with the document you attached to your email:
0. Did we already hear back from the lawyers on the folllwing questions:
[quote] In their comment to the 3rd CCWG draft report the ICANN Board has raised concerns that the proposed inclusion of language in the bylaws with respect to human rights might lead to an increased risk of ICANN being exposed to legal claims or even law suits.
We would appreciate if you could provide us with a brief assessment whether the inclusion of these bylaws would increase the risk of ICANN being exposed to legal claims or even law suits vis a vis the current situation (taking into account the existing obligations under article 4 of ICANNs articles of incorporation), and if so, how such risk could be mitigated.
[/quote]
If not, I am not sure how useful it is to have this discussion now. Unless we're having the discussion on the basis of the premisse that the lawyers had already checked the text before we submitted it for comment and we thus can conclude that the risks that are implied by the board are not realistic.
1. Concerning 2a - Why is the GPI discussion conflated with the human rights discussion? I don't think it will help solve either of the issues.
2. Concerning 2b - I think 'defer' is meant here?
Looking forward to the discussion in a few hours.
Best,
Niels
On 01/11/2016 05:01 PM, Alice Jansen wrote:
_Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs_
> In preparation for your R/ecommendation 6 – Human Rights (first reading)/ discussion scheduled for your call #76 - Tuesday, 12 January 2016 (06:00 – 09:00 UTC) - please find attached the material to review.
> Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you may have in advance of the call.
> Thank you
> Mathieu, Thomas, León
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community