Human Rights draft text for third reading
Dear all, In anticipation for our call tomorrow I am sending you the proposed language for the Human Rights bylaw. This text tries to address all the concerns that were raised in our recent calls and on the mailing list. Please take a momento to review the proposed text and provide your feedback at your earliest convenience. Best regards, León
Thank you Leon. This is one of the issues I have not followed in huge depth, and I acknowledge the expertise and energy deployed through WP4 as well as all the other comments that have come in on this. I would like to offer two thoughts. First, this proposed approach is fine with me so long as our lawyers can certify that "will not enter into force" does indeed render the clause ineffective until the FoI it mentions is developed. I understand from you (offline) that this is the case, but others might wonder the same thing. Second, wherever we land on this question, I just want to signal my own view as a "Member" of the CCWG that I am relaxed about whether this is WS1 or 2 - my own personal view is that the important thing is that the approach to interpreting and applying human rights in the ICANN context is developed by the ICANN community before bylaws-type obligations or requirements come into effect. This text seems to deliver that. So would pushing the matter off to WS2. I'll happily stand with consensus either way. cheers Jordan On 26 January 2016 at 09:40, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
In anticipation for our call tomorrow I am sending you the proposed language for the Human Rights bylaw. This text tries to address all the concerns that were raised in our recent calls and on the mailing list.
Please take a momento to review the proposed text and provide your feedback at your earliest convenience.
Best regards,
León
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *
Dear Jordan Thank you very much for the message In regard with your first point Quote *"will not enter into force" does indeed render the clause ineffective until the FoI it mentions is developed. I understand from you (offline) that this is the case, but others might wonder the same thing."* *Unquote* Yes it will In fact the term" *will not enter into force" *is more appropriate from legal point of view than the term *"will be ineffective"* *...* *In regard with your second point * *Quote* " *wherever we land on this question, I just want to signal my own view as a "Member" of the CCWG that I am relaxed about whether this is WS1 or 2 - my own personal view is that the important thing is that the approach to interpreting and applying human rights in the ICANN context is developed by the ICANN community before bylaws-type obligations or requirements come into effect."* Unquote It may be the case that some or many CCWG members are relaxed but other are not that is why several others prepfer to push it to WS2. Regards Kavouss 2016-01-25 22:43 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>:
Thank you Leon. This is one of the issues I have not followed in huge depth, and I acknowledge the expertise and energy deployed through WP4 as well as all the other comments that have come in on this.
I would like to offer two thoughts.
First, this proposed approach is fine with me so long as our lawyers can certify that "will not enter into force" does indeed render the clause ineffective until the FoI it mentions is developed. I understand from you (offline) that this is the case, but others might wonder the same thing.
Second, wherever we land on this question, I just want to signal my own view as a "Member" of the CCWG that I am relaxed about whether this is WS1 or 2 - my own personal view is that the important thing is that the approach to interpreting and applying human rights in the ICANN context is developed by the ICANN community before bylaws-type obligations or requirements come into effect.
This text seems to deliver that. So would pushing the matter off to WS2. I'll happily stand with consensus either way.
cheers Jordan
On 26 January 2016 at 09:40, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear all,
In anticipation for our call tomorrow I am sending you the proposed language for the Human Rights bylaw. This text tries to address all the concerns that were raised in our recent calls and on the mailing list.
Please take a momento to review the proposed text and provide your feedback at your earliest convenience.
Best regards,
León
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
The text is overcomplicated and it appears to me that it removes all legalobligations on ICANN to respect internationally accepted human rights principles, since they do not form part of applicable law in California. If that is what the CCWG wants, I am disappointed. On 26/01/16 12:44, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Jordan Thank you very much for the message In regard with your first point Quote /"will not enter into force" does indeed render the clause ineffective until the FoI it mentions is developed. I understand from you (offline) that this is the case, but others might wonder the same thing."/ /Unquote/ Yes it will In fact the term" /will not enter into force" /is more appropriate from legal point of view than the term /"will be ineffective"/ /.../ /In regard with your second point / /Quote/ " /wherever we land on this question, I just want to signal my own view as a "Member" of the CCWG that I am relaxed about whether this is WS1 or 2 - my own personal view is that the important thing is that the approach to interpreting and applying human rights in the ICANN context is developed by the ICANN community before bylaws-type obligations or requirements come into effect."/ Unquote It may be the case that some or many CCWG members are relaxed but other are not that is why several others prepfer to push it to WS2. Regards Kavouss
2016-01-25 22:43 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>:
Thank you Leon. This is one of the issues I have not followed in huge depth, and I acknowledge the expertise and energy deployed through WP4 as well as all the other comments that have come in on this.
I would like to offer two thoughts.
First, this proposed approach is fine with me so long as our lawyers can certify that "will not enter into force" does indeed render the clause ineffective until the FoI it mentions is developed. I understand from you (offline) that this is the case, but others might wonder the same thing.
Second, wherever we land on this question, I just want to signal my own view as a "Member" of the CCWG that I am relaxed about whether this is WS1 or 2 - my own personal view is that the important thing is that the approach to interpreting and applying human rights in the ICANN context is developed by the ICANN community before bylaws-type obligations or requirements come into effect.
This text seems to deliver that. So would pushing the matter off to WS2. I'll happily stand with consensus either way.
cheers Jordan
On 26 January 2016 at 09:40, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear all,
In anticipation for our call tomorrow I am sending you the proposed language for the Human Rights bylaw. This text tries to address all the concerns that were raised in our recent calls and on the mailing list.
Please take a momento to review the proposed text and provide your feedback at your earliest convenience.
Best regards,
León
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Nigel May you please be more specific on how including necessary high level materials / text in the transitional Bylaws and deferring the exact texts to be further developped once the frame work of interpretation of HR is fully developped and approved would result to Quote *"it removes all legalobligations on ICANN to respect internationally accepted human rights principles, since they do not form part of applicable law in California."* Unquote You have noted that after many hours of discussions there is no agreement for the full text to be included in the Bylaws as definitive nor any consensus to totally postpoe it to WS2. Some middle ground is being emerged as consensus Regards Kavouss 2016-01-26 14:23 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:
The text is overcomplicated and it appears to me that it removes all legalobligations on ICANN to respect internationally accepted human rights principles, since they do not form part of applicable law in California.
If that is what the CCWG wants, I am disappointed.
On 26/01/16 12:44, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Jordan Thank you very much for the message In regard with your first point Quote /"will not enter into force" does indeed render the clause ineffective until the FoI it mentions is developed. I understand from you (offline) that this is the case, but others might wonder the same thing."/ /Unquote/ Yes it will In fact the term" /will not enter into force" /is more appropriate from legal point of view than the term /"will be ineffective"/ /.../ /In regard with your second point / /Quote/ " /wherever we land on this question, I just want to signal my own view as a "Member" of the CCWG that I am relaxed about whether this is WS1 or 2 - my own personal view is that the important thing is that the approach to interpreting and applying human rights in the ICANN context is developed by the ICANN community before bylaws-type obligations or requirements come into effect."/ Unquote It may be the case that some or many CCWG members are relaxed but other are not that is why several others prepfer to push it to WS2. Regards Kavouss
2016-01-25 22:43 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>:
Thank you Leon. This is one of the issues I have not followed in huge depth, and I acknowledge the expertise and energy deployed through WP4 as well as all the other comments that have come in on this.
I would like to offer two thoughts.
First, this proposed approach is fine with me so long as our lawyers can certify that "will not enter into force" does indeed render the clause ineffective until the FoI it mentions is developed. I understand from you (offline) that this is the case, but others might wonder the same thing.
Second, wherever we land on this question, I just want to signal my own view as a "Member" of the CCWG that I am relaxed about whether this is WS1 or 2 - my own personal view is that the important thing is that the approach to interpreting and applying human rights in the ICANN context is developed by the ICANN community before bylaws-type obligations or requirements come into effect.
This text seems to deliver that. So would pushing the matter off to WS2. I'll happily stand with consensus either way.
cheers Jordan
On 26 January 2016 at 09:40, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear all,
In anticipation for our call tomorrow I am sending you the proposed language for the Human Rights bylaw. This text tries to address all the concerns that were raised in our recent calls and on the mailing list.
Please take a momento to review the proposed text and provide your feedback at your earliest convenience.
Best regards,
León
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ 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
I think the consensus is that ICANN should, before it is permitted to transition, make an unequivocal strategic committment to internationally accepted human rights standard. That is the baseline. I am content to allow HR issues NOT to affect IRPs, for example until as Framework, and detailed bylaws can be developed, e.g. immediately post transiation PROVIDED there is a solemn and binding committent to do that. What I cannot accept, however, is that human rights are defined by applicable US law, which only implements human rights piecemeal. N (You can just see capital punishment for an example of how 'applicable law' permits what is unconditionally rejected by international human rights standards)/ On 26/01/16 13:36, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Nigel May you please be more specific on how including necessary high level materials / text in the transitional Bylaws and deferring the exact texts to be further developped once the frame work of interpretation of HR is fully developped and approved would result to Quote /"it removes all legalobligations on ICANN to respect internationally accepted human rights principles, since they do not form part of applicable law in California."/ Unquote //You have noted that after many hours of discussions there is no agreement for the full text to be included in the Bylaws as definitive nor any consensus to totally postpoe it to WS2. Some middle ground is being emerged as consensus Regards Kavouss
2016-01-26 14:23 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>:
The text is overcomplicated and it appears to me that it removes all legalobligations on ICANN to respect internationally accepted human rights principles, since they do not form part of applicable law in California.
If that is what the CCWG wants, I am disappointed.
On 26/01/16 12:44, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Jordan Thank you very much for the message In regard with your first point Quote /"will not enter into force" does indeed render the clause ineffective until the FoI it mentions is developed. I understand from you (offline) that this is the case, but others might wonder the same thing."/ /Unquote/ Yes it will In fact the term" /will not enter into force" /is more appropriate from legal point of view than the term /"will be ineffective"/ /.../ /In regard with your second point / /Quote/ " /wherever we land on this question, I just want to signal my own view as a "Member" of the CCWG that I am relaxed about whether this is WS1 or 2 - my own personal view is that the important thing is that the approach to interpreting and applying human rights in the ICANN context is developed by the ICANN community before bylaws-type obligations or requirements come into effect."/ Unquote It may be the case that some or many CCWG members are relaxed but other are not that is why several others prepfer to push it to WS2. Regards Kavouss
2016-01-25 22:43 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>>:
Thank you Leon. This is one of the issues I have not followed in huge depth, and I acknowledge the expertise and energy deployed through WP4 as well as all the other comments that have come in on this.
I would like to offer two thoughts.
First, this proposed approach is fine with me so long as our lawyers can certify that "will not enter into force" does indeed render the clause ineffective until the FoI it mentions is developed. I understand from you (offline) that this is the case, but others might wonder the same thing.
Second, wherever we land on this question, I just want to signal my own view as a "Member" of the CCWG that I am relaxed about whether this is WS1 or 2 - my own personal view is that the important thing is that the approach to interpreting and applying human rights in the ICANN context is developed by the ICANN community before bylaws-type obligations or requirements come into effect.
This text seems to deliver that. So would pushing the matter off to WS2. I'll happily stand with consensus either way.
cheers Jordan
On 26 January 2016 at 09:40, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>> wrote:
Dear all,
In anticipation for our call tomorrow I am sending you the proposed language for the Human Rights bylaw. This text tries to address all the concerns that were raised in our recent calls and on the mailing list.
Please take a momento to review the proposed text and provide your feedback at your earliest convenience.
Best regards,
León
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> <tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz> <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Nigel, I am on record that I do not agree with watering this down. el On 2016-01-26 15:46, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I think the consensus is that ICANN should, before it is permitted to transition, make an unequivocal strategic committment to internationally accepted human rights standard. That is the baseline.
I am content to allow HR issues NOT to affect IRPs, for example until as Framework, and detailed bylaws can be developed, e.g. immediately post transiation PROVIDED there is a solemn and binding committent to do that.
What I cannot accept, however, is that human rights are defined by applicable US law, which only implements human rights piecemeal.
N
(You can just see capital punishment for an example of how 'applicable law' permits what is unconditionally rejected by international human rights standards)/
On 26/01/16 13:36, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Nigel May you please be more specific on how including necessary high level materials / text in the transitional Bylaws and deferring the exact texts to be further developped once the frame work of interpretation of HR is fully developped and approved would result to Quote /"it removes all legalobligations on ICANN to respect internationally accepted human rights principles, since they do not form part of applicable law in California."/ Unquote //You have noted that after many hours of discussions there is no agreement for the full text to be included in the Bylaws as definitive nor any consensus to totally postpoe it to WS2. Some middle ground is being emerged as consensus Regards Kavouss
2016-01-26 14:23 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>:
The text is overcomplicated and it appears to me that it removes all legalobligations on ICANN to respect internationally accepted human rights principles, since they do not form part of applicable law in California.
If that is what the CCWG wants, I am disappointed. [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Dear Nigle What text you propose? Where you want to put the ICANN Commitment? Regards 2016-01-26 14:53 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Nigel,
I am on record that I do not agree with watering this down.
el
On 2016-01-26 15:46, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I think the consensus is that ICANN should, before it is permitted to transition, make an unequivocal strategic committment to internationally accepted human rights standard. That is the baseline.
I am content to allow HR issues NOT to affect IRPs, for example until as Framework, and detailed bylaws can be developed, e.g. immediately post transiation PROVIDED there is a solemn and binding committent to do that.
What I cannot accept, however, is that human rights are defined by applicable US law, which only implements human rights piecemeal.
N
(You can just see capital punishment for an example of how 'applicable law' permits what is unconditionally rejected by international human rights standards)/
On 26/01/16 13:36, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Nigel May you please be more specific on how including necessary high level materials / text in the transitional Bylaws and deferring the exact texts to be further developped once the frame work of interpretation of HR is fully developped and approved would result to Quote /"it removes all legalobligations on ICANN to respect internationally accepted human rights principles, since they do not form part of applicable law in California."/ Unquote //You have noted that after many hours of discussions there is no agreement for the full text to be included in the Bylaws as definitive nor any consensus to totally postpoe it to WS2. Some middle ground is being emerged as consensus Regards Kavouss
2016-01-26 14:23 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>:
The text is overcomplicated and it appears to me that it removes all legalobligations on ICANN to respect internationally accepted human rights principles, since they do not form part of applicable law in California.
If that is what the CCWG wants, I am disappointed. [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (5)
-
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Nigel Roberts