I think Greg’s statement at the end of his response is at the very heart of what will change in ICANN – that is the requirement for a more structured balancing process that Greg references and that Nigel also references when he speaks of the balancing of rights required under the EU Human Rights laws. The reasons I continue to provide feedback on governance issues and what it means to say “applicable law” are: (1) The duties of the Directors must be clear. If they are not clear, the Directors and the corporation face unreasonable risk that will disrupt ICANN’s daily operations. So the standards for compliance with the new ByLaw cannot be “murky”. (2) The new ByLaw says that the duty of the Directors of the corporation is defined by applicable law and they cannot be required to go beyond this. (That does not mean they cannot adopt policy generated in the normal ICANN processes and protocols referred to in Annex 6 – in accordance with the Directors’ normal procedures for policy adoption.) (3) The emphasis to date has been on privacy rights and a rather limited definition of “free expression”. While I fully support free speech and the notion that persons expressing themselves on the Internet should not be repressed or harassed (or worse arrested in some countries where that speech may be illegal), I cannot agree that there is a right to be anonymous on the Internet, especially where counterfeit products and fraud (e.g. for donations) would be allowed to proceed, forcing consumers to suffer injury and bear the burden of an unfettered privacy right. Many have already recognized this issue in relation to pharma. It is certainly a problem in toys (lead paint). It is also a problem in counterfeit goods represented as authentic goods of indigenous peoples and it is a problem in the realm of works of art (including motion pictures) being misappropriated. These wrongs also represent violations of Human Rights and it is wrong to pretend that the only Human Rights involved in the balancing act are free speech and privacy. Rights of authors under the Universal Convention are particularly important. In addition, every consumer should be able to find and proceed against sellers of infant formula laced with arsenic (to provide an extreme example). Further, copyright infringers skimming profits from “click-throughs” or sales of pirated DVDs should not be able to run away from that activity (illegal in all the Berne Convention countries) because they can’t be located and (theoretically) default judgment is no longer available under the UDRP. To the extent that remedies for these wrongs are not available in the DNS, the burden will begin in the private sector but will ultimately fall on governments who must protect consumers. So indeed a careful balancing act is required among not only the Core Values, but among the competing Human Rights themselves and that is what we are asking the Community to do in a more focused way going forward via the development of the Framework of Interpretation and any further work we do. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D277C1.466567D0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:05 PM To: Nigel Roberts Cc: <ws2-hr@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-hr] "Applicable Law": Human Rights Law and dualist States - ICANN's obligations under California law If I understand the point correctly, national (or state) laws that protect human rights are not human rights laws; in particular, national (or state) laws that protect human rights from being violated by people, corporations or other non-state entities are not human rights laws; that national and state laws adopted to comply with human rights treaties and conventions are not human rights laws; that the only actual human rights laws are not laws at all, but treaties, conventions and other such instruments; that if a person, corporation or other non-state entity ensures that it upholds and is guided by such national (or state) laws it is not respecting human rights; and that the only way a person, corporation or other non-state entity can respect human rights is by voluntarily adhering to treaties, conventions and other instruments that do not in fact apply to such person, corporation or other non-state entity. These seems to me to be very crabbed and peculiar definitions of both human rights laws and of respecting human rights. I think the proper (and simpler, and more logical) way to view this is that laws that protect human rights are human rights laws, and that this certainly includes laws that protect persons, etc. from the actions of other persons, etc., and that this includes national and state laws adopted to comply with human rights treaties and conventions. Also, that a corporation can respect human rights by respecting these laws and seeking to uphold and be guided by them. This also has the advantage of being consistent with the thinking that underpins the Bylaw. (As an aside, I think that those who passed those laws, and enforce those laws, and write about those laws would be surprised (to say the least) to find they are not human rights laws....) I should also point out that the obligations of a non-profit public benefit corporation (like ICANN) are very different from a for-profit corporation, which (arguably) is only obligated to its owners/shareholders, or a mutual benefit corporation, which (unless otherwise specified) is only obligated to its members. As a public benefit corporation, ICANN has obligations in the public interest. This is readily apparent by looking at the Articles and at the Bylaws (in particular, the Mission, Commitments and Core Values), as well as the California Corporations Code as it applies to public benefit non-profits (not to mention the Attorney General's rules regarding same). It's an apples and oranges comparison, and a critical distinction. Speaking of Core Values -- the Core Values need to be adhered to (with the appropriate balancing of Core Values when they all can't be adhered to perfectly), and they inform the interpretation and implementation of Commitments, and with them, the Mission. Before the Bylaw, Human Rights was not part of the Core Value equation, and it was not expressly part of the larger equation that is invoked when ICANN deliberates, decides and acts. Now Human Rights is there, and expressly there, and attention must be paid. And that is significant. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: Greg With respect, what you have written is the red herring. NONE of the laws mentioned is human rights legislation. Unless voluntarily adhered (e.g. the Ruggle exampe) Human rights only apply between the individual and the State. Human rights obligations do NOT affect private companies except indirectly. The legislation you mention (and any other similar legislation) is something different. They are just examples of a particular State (i.e. the USA) enacting legislation to create domestic legal rules in pursuit of its treaty obligations. Never mind that the USA has its own view of which human rights it cares to adhere to, Idifference between am mildly surprised that you continue to fail to appreciate the nature of universal human rights (such as the right to property) whi are freestanding and independent of the detail of any State's efforts to legislate domestically. Rights such as are set out, for example, the Universal Declaration, ECHR and EU Charter. These are not the same those domestic legal obligations (such as the law against theft) which the State has determined to create as some domestic obligations on individuals and legal persons. Notwithstanding the above analysis, if you are right, then the human rights bylaw is entirely a waste of ink. In that case, all ICANN has to do to respect human rights is make sure all its actions are legal at all times. I think, somehow the Board have to do that anyway, doesn't it? Doing something different is not an option for an organsiont that respects the rule of law of the land(s) in which it operates The example I would give, is prior to the 1998 Human Rights Act in the UK, no government department or emanation of the state (state actor) was legally obliged to respect human rights at all. They alwyas had to follow the law, of course. But frequently those laws contravene human rights. (There are numerous examples of the UK being found in breach of its human rights obligations due to defects in its applicable laws). Therefore while it is necessary for ICANN to follow the applicable law (e.g. in California), it is not sufficient to merely follow domestic applicable law in order to achieve the purpose of respect for universal human rights. For private sector bodies, the principle of freedom of contract trumps human rights. There is no denying this is the case. A state actor, however, when it creates rules binding on others is obliged to conduct what the European Court of Human Rights refers to repeatedly as 'the balancing exercise'. That is so, whenever different, competing, human rights are engaged, the ruleemaker and the associated tribunls must balance the both rights. But a private company has an obligation only to itself and its members or shareholders. So, for example, ICANN is entirely free to enter into contracts that are unbalanced, as between freedom of expression and the right to property. Or between freedom of expression and privacy rights. The disconnect between EU Data Protecion law and ICANN WHOIS policy compared with European ccTLDs (who have to follow applicable law in Europe!)is a prime example of the lack of any obligation on ICANN's part to balance competing rights -- there is no assessment of proportonality when considering the aim to be achieved. All this is perfectly legal under "applicable law" yet it is undesirable. The only way that the freedom of expression or privacy can be taken into account is when those advocating have an equally loud voice in the rulemaking process to the property interests. So at the end of the day where are we? Either Greg is right, which inevitably means there was no need for the bylaw -- ICANN just has to keep on the right side of 'applicable law to be promoting human rights in its work. Alternatively, perhaps the expression 'applicable law' (i.e. law applicable to ICANN) includes obligations from other sources, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as was suggested in _ICM Registry_ The danger created is that, as shown in_ICM Registry (where ICANN claimed that the tribunal had to defer to ICANN's Board's judgment ICANN's approach clearly infrigeed ICM's universal fair hearing right) may assert that one of the sources of law that ICANN has legally (by applicable Calif. law) adhered to by its original incorporation documents, could be something entirely unexpected. (I fear that in attempt to exclude it by the revised bylaws, ICANN may have opened the door to it.) <https://ohr.dc.gov/external-link/americans-disabilities-act-1990> * Age Discrimination in Employment Act <https://ohr.dc.gov/external-link/age-discrimination-employment-act> * Equal Pay Act <https://ohr.dc.gov/external-link/equal-pay-act> * Pregnancy Discrimination Act <https://ohr.dc.gov/external-link/pregnancy-discrimination-act> In addition, many portions of the US Constitution and particularly the "Bill of Rights" (i.e., the first 10 amendments) protect human rights. Here's a page with discussion and links relating to both California law and Federal law protecting human rights: https://oag.ca.gov/civil/lawleg#federalLaws Also this: https://oag.ca.gov/civil California passed a landmark human rights law in 2015 that extended the ability to make claims for human rights abuses, among other things: https://www.justsecurity.org/26619/california-human-rights-legislation/ Here's a Wikipedia entry on another California human rights law, the Unruh Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act If you have 90 minutes, you can watch this webinar from the California Department of Human Resources: "Overview of Civil Rights Laws in the Workplace": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNK1bIHE3HY Here's an interesting scholarly paper on using international human rights instruments in state courts: https://opportunityagenda.org/files/Human_Rights_in_State_Court.pdf (copy attached) Red herring or not, this discusses how treaties have actually been invoked effectively in state court litigation. Here's a blog called "Human Rights at Home," which covers US human rights laws and issues (as well as some international human rights issues): http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/human_rights/ Here's a white paper from the Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School (my alma mater) on using human rights treaties at the state and local level. It also has a good, if slightly self-flagellating, summary discussion of human rights in the US, at the beginning of the document: https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-ins... (and attached). As an aside, I would also note that California is one of the leading states (if not the leading US state) with regard to state legislation protecting human rights. So, if you wanted to choose an applicable state law in the US from which to derive human rights protections, you could scarcely do better than California. Among other things, California has a law specifically protecting the human right to water; here's an implementation framework for that law: http://www.ushrnetwork.org/resources-media/human-right-water-bill-california I could go on, but I think it's sufficient to demonstrate that state and federal laws applicable to ICANN include many laws protecting human rights. The one thing I haven't found in the bit of searching I have done, is a comprehensive resource ("one stop shopping," if you will) for federal and state human rights laws, whether generally or applicable to California (although the second link above comes close on the latter front). If there are any eager law students look for a note topic, or professors looking for an article topic, that might be an interesting one (if I am in fact right that no such resource yet exists; I have hardly plumbed the depths....) Best regards, Greg On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com> <mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com<mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com>>> wrote: Thank you Nigel, Ann, David...as I and maybe one or two others on this list continue to comprehend legalese and applicable law. Looking forward to comments from the plenty and public. rd On Jan 25, 2017 5:15 PM, "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com> <mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>>> wrote: Thank you Nigel, An interesting development in the drama playing out over the Brexit issue. I cannot commit to read the entire Supreme Court Judgment or the IRP case (ICM Registry) at present and so my comments here, my personal opinions, are hardly a legal review. I did go to some language from the case - the background that you alluded to - and came away thinking differently about human rights law and domestic law. First, in paragraph 55, where the court says, "treaties are not part of UK law and give rise to no legal rights or obligations in domestic law" I would probably agree if trained at UK law. But treaties often do give rise to domestic legislation activating such rights/obligations under domestic law. That happens in US and probably elsewhere. Recall that the bylaw requires ICANN to respect certain human rights - not treaties. And human rights get embedded in legislation from time to time - that is the point, as I recall, of Sidley's advice on the subject. So I don't agree that human rights are not applicable under domestic law, and I would be surprised if certain human rights were not protected under UK domestic law. With respect to the ICM Registry matter at IRP, I took a look a while back when you first mentioned it and went back just now to look at part of the decision - the applicable law part starting at paragraph 137. It seems to me that the panel said that ICANN's obligation, as the panel saw it, to act in conformance with principles of international law followed from ICANN's stated intentions. ICANN and the community just restated ICANN's intentions in new bylaws and this time expressly addressed respect for human rights. It seems to me this newly stated intention now drives this discussion. Moreover, the panel said the parties differences on international law was not material to its decision - good faith was, a principle not only applicable in international law but also, importantly, in California corporate law. I therefore remain of the view that the bylaw as written in Section 1.2(b)(viii) is meaningful and not a nullity, including the terms "internationally recognized" and "as required by applicable law." David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154<tel:703-948-4154> <tel:703-948-4154<tel:703-948-4154>> -----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org>>] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:47 AM To: ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:ws2-hr@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-hr] "Applicable Law": Human Rights Law and dualist States - ICANN's obligations under California law Esteemed colleagues THe UNK Supreme Court has today issued its reasoned judgment in the case of Miller & Santos -v- The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. As was entirely foreseeable, the Brexit Department lost their appeal, and comprehensively. Not immediately relevant to this group's deliberations you might think? The reasoned judgment (which, released by the Court just over an hour or so ago, you may find at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf <https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf>) is a brilliant exercise in setting out the UK's unwritten constitution and the interplay of treaties (such as the EU Treaty, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and -- by implication - the various (non-EU) Human Rights instruments such as the 1950 Convention, and several other international human rights instruments to which the UK, and the US, have ratified). Whilst it will be amusing and engaging to see the legal Gordan knot that the Prime Minister must untangle (and, I suspect, not the last) I would draw your attention to the background as set out in the judgment which clearly sts out the points I've been making about human rights law that is 'applicable' only to nation states, and binding only in international law, not domestic law. At paragraph 52, their Lordships write: "The first is that treaties between sovereign states have effect in international law and are not governed by the domestic law of any state. As Lord Kingsdown expressed it in Secretary of State in Council of India v Kamachee Boye Sahaba (1859) 13 Moo PCC 22, 75, treaties are "governed by other laws than those which municipal courts administer". The second proposition is that, although they are binding [on the United Kingdom] in international law, treaties are not part of [UK] law and give rise to no legal rights or obligations in domestic law." This approach does NOT apply to 'monist' countries. But it applies equally to the US (which, although having a written Constitution, is a dualist state in exactly the same way that the UK is). Therefore, in my submission, = either the ICANN Human Rights by-law is a nullity and the entire by-law is otiose (as I warned at the time!), or = the approach to applicable law set out by ICM Registry -v- ICANN (ICDR Case No. 50 117 T 00224 08), accessible at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/-panel-declaration-19feb10-en.pd... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/-panel-declaration-19feb10-en.pd...> (in particular contained in paras 104 et seq) applies to the newly minted by-law. Which is it? On 24/01/17 09:14, Niels ten Oever wrote: Dear all, We're still at the same point: we did not yet receive guidance from the CCWG plenary or the CCWG co-chairs on how to proceed with our work, so I propose we also cancel todays meeting, and see whether we will receive guidance during the plenary meeting tomorrow. All the best, Niels On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:10:33AM +0100, Niels ten Oever wrote: Dear all, I am put at a bit of a hard cross-road; I would love to continue our work, but we're waiting for advice from the CCWG co-chairs on our question to the plenary on how to proceed our work. Since we did not receive a (preliminary) answer from the co-chairs or the plenary I think we can do nothing but wait. Therefore I propose we cancel this evenings call and wait until we hear more from the co-chairs. If you have any other suggestion that would of course also be very welcome. All the best, Niels -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org<http://www.article19.org> <http://www.article19.org> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr> _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr> _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr> _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr> _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr> _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr igh _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr ________________________________ 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.
