Yes

You are absolutely right.

I can not agree more than what you very well described, But THERE ARE MAJOR DIVERGENCE OF VIEWS .

We have two options :

One which was on the table by CCWG as a possible emerged consensus

Another as the Board mentioned BUT to be accompanied by a strong REsolution as a firm committments to respect ,observe and implement the fundamental right as you mentined, That Board's Resolution yet to be drafted agreed by Board ,examined by CCWG and ensorded by CCWG

Regards

Kavouss

2016-01-28 5:42 GMT+01:00 Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com>:

Seriously need to say fundamental rights are the question.  Treaty
human rights are weak, and the concern has to be that the transition
involves a loss of the strict standard that relates to fundamental
rights.  This might have been the standard the NTIA would have been
expected to apply in its semiregular reviews of ICANN.  But note,
since there's no reference to the constitution (of the US, just by
happenstance, could have been any other country with a constitutional
basis for rights) but just rights like free speech, the NTIA is free
to just say all they would have applied would have been the standards
that apply internationally.

The UN always says "human rights" and "fundamental freedoms" rather
than "fundamental rights" because saying fundamental raises the issue
of the fact that treaty-based rights are weak.

The international standard is really weak.  There's no way to overrule
a treaty on the basis of another treaty, because even if one is on
human rights and another is on, say, fighting terror, both are enacted
by the same "body" -- participating governments.  So the standard is
at best how do the two treaties interact and balance against each
other.

If you just issue a statement on human rights, they've conned the
group again, all along keeping the discussion narrowly focused on the
issue of how to structure ICANN -- which never could have addressed
the implications of the transition, from the start -- as I think you
are seeing.


Seth Johnson

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Bruce Tonkin
<Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
> Hello Kavouss,
>
>
>>>  For the Human Rights issue, one suggestion was to follow the Board's request ( Not to include any thing about HR in the transitional/ intermediate Bylaws but receiving the Board's  FIRM Commitment IN A BOARD'S RESOLUTION APPROVED AND SENT TO CCWG IMMEDIATELY) enabling CCWG whether it could endorse that and annex it to the Bylaws to cool down those who are worried about the HR.
>
> Thanks for this suggestion.   It is under active consideration by the Board.
>
> One possible option is that we pass a resolution in support of human rights principles in our meeting in Singapore next week.
>
> I will provide an update next week.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community