Hi, First let me reiterate, I am fine with listing none of the documents. However, if we go beyond that and start listing documents, I believe the Ruggie principles are an important guidance, since they not only include references to the fundamental documents, but it creates a possible framework for actually doing it. As I am suggesting they only be listed as guidance as a framework. otherwise it is just a bunch of references that may or may not be applicable with no framework for determining the applicability. But again if we keep it simple and list none of the docs, I am comfortable leaving this one out as well. Or we just move the entire conversation to the CCWG. I am fine with that as well. avri On 11-Oct-15 17:03, Paul Twomey wrote:
Nigel
I am of a similar view as Tatiana's below.
My stated concern has always been with some subset sections of the Ruggie principles. Not necessarily with UDHR.
Paul
On 10/12/15 6:22 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
Nigel, I think there is confusion about the matter we are actually trying to discuss here, namely, which instruments should stay in the bracketed text. You refer to UDHR - but it's not the issue. A reference to UDHR was suggested in the group discussion and we decided that it will stay in the bracketed text of the proposed bylaw language as one of the choices. I am for more general bylaw language, but I can live the inclusion of UDHR and other two legal instruments proposed because they reflect international human rights law. So this bracketed text will stay in the proposed language anyway. The discussion here, however, focuses on the inclusion of the Ruggie principles, not UDHR. And whatever issue is raised as a potential concern - be it legal issue, potential liability or just simply the absence of even a rough consensus between the members of the group on a possible inclusion of Ruggie principles into the bylaw language and possible consequences of such inclusion - it means, IMHO, that we can't propose to include UN Guiding principles. Proper legal instruments, such as UDHR, will stay in brackets as a possible choice in any case. That's how I see it. Best regards Tatiana
On 11/10/15 21:00, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Paul
What legal connection does ICANN have to ccTLDs that would make it potentially liable in the way you suggest.
This is a serious question. You have raised it as a /legal/ issue here.
I repeat my submission that to omit a reference to the applicable human rights standard (UDHR) instrument could potentially make ICANN liable under other instruments.
On 11/10/15 19:51, Paul Twomey wrote:
ICANN being held legally liable for the actions of ccTLDs, RIRs and
Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus