Please note that in this morning’s GAC meeting on Human Rights, GAC members were asked to join a WG within the GAC to coordinate the Human Rights effort and place one GAC member to participate on each of the three very important PDP processes (Subsequent Procedures, RPM Review, and RDS services) for purposes of ensuring Human Rights are properly considered. There was also a call for volunteers from the GAC to participate in Accountability Workstream 2 work on Human Rights. The two documents referenced as most relevant were the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and a very recent report by a UN special rapporteur on the Role of the Private Sector in Human Rights – which is apparently available on the GAC website. One speaker on the dais, Milagros Castanon, also expressed the opinion that the ICANN By-Law on Human Rights is not well-written and suggested that it will need to be revised in the process of developing the Human Rights Framework of Interpretation. A portion of her statement is pasted below my signature. I hope someone from IPC can attend the CCWP (Cross Community Working Party on Human Rights) meeting Thursday at 3 pm. I will not be able to attend that meeting. I have one Procedural question: Does Human Rights Policy ever have to go through the GNSO? Or is this policy developed solely as a result of Accountability Workstream 2? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D1D196.0546A330] MILAGROS CASTANON: FIRST OF ALL, JORGE AND MARK, I'M VERY SORRY BECAUSE I WAS LATE, AND ALL OF YOU AS WELL. AND I WANTED TO GO BACK TO WHAT JORGE JUST SAID AND WHAT KAVOUSS SAID AS WELL. THE FRAMEWORK OF INTERPRETATION IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL GET INVOLVED IN THIS WORKING GROUP, THIS SUBGROUP. AND NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT -- THE FINAL CONTENTS OF THE FRAMEWORK OF INTERPRETATION BUT ALSO BECAUSE AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THERE'S -- THERE ARE A FEW QUESTIONS THAT ARISE FROM THE IDEA OF A FRAMEWORK OF INTERPRETATION, WHICH I HAVE ALREADY -- PERU HAS ALREADY EXPRESSED THROUGH THE COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE BYLAWS. WE DON'T KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THIS FRAMEWORK OF INTERPRETATION WILL HAVE THE SAME LEGAL STANDING AS THE BYLAWS. IF IT'S A FRAMEWORK OF INTERPRETATION OF THE BYLAWS, IT SHOULDN'T HAVE THE SAME LEGAL STANDING. SO THE BYLAWS REQUIRE EVEN MORE IMPORTANCE. AND IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT TO THIS RESPECT THE BYLAWS AS FAR AS, FOR EXAMPLE, INTERNATIONAL LAW IS CONCERNED ARE NOT WELL WRITTEN. THEY LACK ACCURACY. I DON'T WANT TO WASTE EVERYBODY'S TIME WITH MY REPEATED COMMENTS. WE HAVE ALREADY POSTED THEM IN THE WEB SITE FOR COMMENTING THE BYLAWS. WE FIND THEM A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS, AND I PRESUME THAT THIS AMBIGUITY IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF THROUGH THE FRAMEWORK OF INTERPRETATION. REGARDING WHAT YOU JUST SAID, KAVOUSS, ABOUT CONVENTIONS, THAT'S ANOTHER ERROR THAT HAS BEEN MADE WHEN DESCRIBING THE EXTENT OR THE -- (NON-ENGLISH WORD OR PHRASE) -- OF ICANN WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW. IN THIS REGARD, THE SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW WHICH ARE -- ONE OF THEM ARE CONVENTIONS. ONLY ONE OF THEM. BUT YOU SEE IT'S NOT WELL WRITTEN BECAUSE EITHER -- YOU CANNOT CHOOSE ONE FROM THE OTHER. I HAVE MADE, ON MY OWN, A LIST OF APPLICABLE LAWS KNOWN TODAY. I REMEMBER SUZANNE RENDELL ALSO INSISTED ON KNOWING WHAT WERE THE APPLICABLE LAWS AND I MADE IT A POINT TO RESEARCH SURROUNDING THIS PREOCCUPATION OF SUZANNE, AND THERE IS A LIST THAT I CAN SHARE WITH YOU BUT IT IS NOT A CONCLUSIVE LIST, NOT ONLY BECAUSE THERE IS NOT ONE COMPLETE BINDING FRAMEWORK, INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE INTERNET, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THERE IS MANY -- THERE ARE MANY SOFT LAWS THAT ARE BEING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE APPLICATION OF INTERNET IN THE LACK OF AN INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK, A LEGAL FRAMEWORK. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
