Kavouss I'm not entirely sure, but I THINK we are in violent agreement. I am content if there is a high-level statement in the by-laws. I am most certainly objecting loudly if either by accident or clever drafting (I beleive the latter more likely) the UDHR rights do not have to be respected by the Corporation. On 28/01/16 12:13, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Nigel We do not release the Board once the framework of interpretation is prepared-and approved as results of WS2. We mention that in the bylaw the need that ICANN MUST RESPECT HR but we postpone the exact text reflecting the case . In the meantime , we consider the Board,s Res. Providing a firm commitment to fully respect, observe and implement the referenced HR once we receive that Res. And approve with out without amendment Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Jan 2016, at 12:18, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
With respect, I disagree 100% with Tatiana's position.
Whilst I have serious reservations -- based on historical behaviour of the then Board -- that a commitment based on a Board committment will be upheld, I still think that trusting the Board to deliver on this in a Framework/WS2 is preferable to a by-law designed by committee of the loudest objectors, which on a strict construction (i.e. taking a strict legal interpretation) complete relieves the corporation of any obligations to respect human rights *other than those right that have "domestic horizontal application") .
We need to place it at the heart of ICANN's approach to its special world-wide role.
I suggest WS2 may even examine the UDHR in detail and compare it to ICANN@s work. You will probably find that except for the three or four core Rights whic are REALLY important to ICANN;s work most of the others are either obviously inapplicable, or tritely applicable.
I am therefore surprised to find myself largely agreeing with the Board's approach, than the dog's breakfast that proposal seems to have reached.
On 28/01/16 11:02, Niels ten Oever wrote: I think we should indeed keep the discussion clear by discussing issues the board might have the current text, based on legal analysis, case-law, examples or otherwise.
If the CCWG doesn't receive this, I think we should go ahead as concluded in the last call.
Best,
Niels
PS I would of course very much welcome any concrete commitment of the board to human rights and I think it could strengthen the work we'll do in WS2 when the bylaw is in place.
On 01/28/2016 10:51 AM, Tropina, Tatiana wrote: Dear all,
I believe that the commitment of the board to support human rights principles is indeed a great constructive move that can be wholeheartedly welcome. However, if it is going to be done to divert the discussion from the main question, namely: what are the risks that the board sees if the bylaw text suggested on the last call (dormant bylaw) will be adopted? - I don't think it can be considered as a proper way forward. It has been discussed many times that commitment to human rights is a community exercise, I doubt that the top down commitment can replace the proper bylaw. Moreover, I am not sure that a resolution to respect human rights adopted in urgency to avoid the bylaw is a good substitute for the approach CCWG suggested after many hours of discussions and many attempts to find a solution that will address everyone's concern. If the board's resolution is what we are getting as an alternative to the bylaw, I am not certain it can be considered as a compromise. I am ready for constructive discussions, but when top-down approach replaces the community exercise I rather become cautious and concerned.
Best regards, Tatiana ________________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: 28 January 2016 10:04 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Bruce Tonkin Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mission statement and human rights
Bruce, Your Resolution needs to capture major elements of the Recommendation regarding HF WITH A CLEAR ONE OR MORE RESOLVES TO provide the firm committment. Regards Kavouss
2016-01-28 8:58 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community