DOCUMENT - Rec 6 – Human Rights (first reading)
Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs In preparation for your Recommendation 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 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
- -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWlCUyAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpHW4H/0RIyUXn/9w8S6Dac/y7LNZ1 DWSQsnsg4KVnd7BJEg/G7FPOq/X/bXerOWML8E6PSZ1JR8sjHBQj+vLerfGAE8dQ 6TBgTYpeCOryHYLJ+D3WeXGA5t+6YsmXHfnGO/+vaj4ocVQrUgKbZy58bzafmAa6 CeOvvi419bOEn4SDqMo3oenunHlZDloUTKPk+6lhIDt2vPijSHXNiN6u4KDcDNED hdxzUyzPnF3X/T0mEzovti8n8pJRoVlcIlqmjZcxZk7F43gWyFDfRzKuo8rtyjbz 4Ip5MF8XwzFTTSVje6dSDVqZxRYA1teSei2Rxh1vlEsu09vX9tfBBYUQn9MhB4E= =H2WU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+ 1 Niels - I would also like to understand where we are vis-a-vis outside counsel on this matter and also to better understand the rationale behind 2b. On 11/01/2016 21:57, Niels ten Oever wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
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
- -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWlCUyAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpHW4H/0RIyUXn/9w8S6Dac/y7LNZ1 DWSQsnsg4KVnd7BJEg/G7FPOq/X/bXerOWML8E6PSZ1JR8sjHBQj+vLerfGAE8dQ 6TBgTYpeCOryHYLJ+D3WeXGA5t+6YsmXHfnGO/+vaj4ocVQrUgKbZy58bzafmAa6 CeOvvi419bOEn4SDqMo3oenunHlZDloUTKPk+6lhIDt2vPijSHXNiN6u4KDcDNED hdxzUyzPnF3X/T0mEzovti8n8pJRoVlcIlqmjZcxZk7F43gWyFDfRzKuo8rtyjbz 4Ip5MF8XwzFTTSVje6dSDVqZxRYA1teSei2Rxh1vlEsu09vX9tfBBYUQn9MhB4E= =H2WU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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
Am 11.01.2016 um 22:57 schrieb Niels ten Oever <lists@nielstenoever.net>:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
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
- -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWlCUyAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpHW4H/0RIyUXn/9w8S6Dac/y7LNZ1 DWSQsnsg4KVnd7BJEg/G7FPOq/X/bXerOWML8E6PSZ1JR8sjHBQj+vLerfGAE8dQ 6TBgTYpeCOryHYLJ+D3WeXGA5t+6YsmXHfnGO/+vaj4ocVQrUgKbZy58bzafmAa6 CeOvvi419bOEn4SDqMo3oenunHlZDloUTKPk+6lhIDt2vPijSHXNiN6u4KDcDNED hdxzUyzPnF3X/T0mEzovti8n8pJRoVlcIlqmjZcxZk7F43gWyFDfRzKuo8rtyjbz 4Ip5MF8XwzFTTSVje6dSDVqZxRYA1teSei2Rxh1vlEsu09vX9tfBBYUQn9MhB4E= =H2WU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, The transition in itself will be an excuse for the crazy people who like to sue to have a reason for suit. Any change in the organization opens up possible avenues for those who like to sue people for personal gain. And no change we might make is as big an opportunity as leaving the protection of NTIA. I would like to see any analysis on the increase of behavioral risk of crazy people suing, to differentiate between HR and all the other changes we are making. Legal liability is one thing. Behavior of suit happy Americans is quite another. avri On 12-Jan-16 00:46, 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWlKFfAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpkucH/j7+oJDCkgVBj19s1p/d9xED eKZhjPZJIqYLC4K63g6K/aY19ijV+39xjMNFIacAR6pTKl0UFNy1cflrgIiJeFBc 3CqMRDTSUUw5gV0NqFYBGoznS0g8FtYS/l336yUDYRNxUcCghKOabHQKJ4L14Ltd bdFkgr5VQyimhWzVXNLuaL+twIO/FkGVIpt59cNpP6pMMSgPIxmBj9Qexs4R5J+6 Mh4Vz1Z+piGQTCDi3nWie5V/2CwgHll7NJQKEUXC++NDqQ5hDVFe8Rq9TTVJEjjw ioXT69i66scNX6lHV3Mqwx+XB+d5n9fdNao63pqNC1GLT799KaH+Rd9KnE5BJ90= =W22t -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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
participants (6)
-
Alice Jansen -
Avri Doria -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Matthew Shears -
Niels ten Oever -
Thomas Rickert