[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 - Human Rights - 1st reading conclusions
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Jan 19 10:00:04 UTC 2016
Dear All,
Is the current provision relating to HR in the AoC DORMANT?
Regards
Kavouss
2016-01-19 10:50 GMT+01:00 Niels ten Oever <lists at nielstenoever.net>:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 01/19/2016 07:11 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> > I'm not sure that all of the 3 alternatives are so "clear cut."
> >
> > Does alternative "a" drop the transitional Bylaw that's in the Third
> > Draft Proposal?
>
> No
>
> > If not, what effect does the transitional bylaw have?
> >
>
> It ensures that a framwork of interpretation will be made.
>
> > Alternative "b" seems fairly clear.
> >
> > Alternative "c" seems closest to the Third Draft Proposal, with the
> > benefit that it clarifies the effect of the transitional bylaw. (As of
> > now, the effect of the transitional bylaw on whether the Human Rights
> > bylaw is "open for business" is not as clear as it should be.)
> >
>
> Disagree. Option C makes the bylaw dormant which was not the case in the
> Third Draft Proposal.
>
> That was the proposal of (your) minority opinion.
>
> > If alternative "a" clearly means that the Human Rights bylaw is "open
> > for business," and that ICANN must abide by the bylaw, and that SO/ACs
> > must abide by the bylaw, and that ICANN can be taken to task for failing
> > to abide by the bylaw (up to and including an IRP), all without the
> > Framework of Interpretation -- then I have some considerable sympathy
> > for the concerns raised by Paul and by the Board.
> >
> > If the Bylaw is "open for business," then an /ad hoc/ series of
> > discussions about interpretation and therefore an /ad hoc/ set of
> > interpretations will develop out of necessity, and in many cases those
> > discussions will be held within ICANN the corporation and between ICANN
> > the corporation and its counsel. At the same time, there may be efforts
> > in various parts of the community (having nothing to do with WS2) to
> > react to Board and staff actions or to proactively provide viewpoints to
> > the Board and staff. This will just be a free-for-all. By the time the
> > formal efforts in WS2 are brought forth, these results will have to
> > supplant or compete with or try to somehow harmonize with all of these
> > /ad hoc /efforts. What a mess that would be.
>
> I don't think human rights are that open for interpretation as is
> sketched here.
>
> >
> > The only way to hold back the /ad hoc/ growth of interpretive bits and
> > pieces, is for the Bylaw not to be effective until the Framework of
> > Interpretation is in place. Some may argue that this was the intent of
> > the transitional bylaw, though perhaps inartfully drafted. Others may
> > argue that the transitional bylaw means something different (not quite
> > sure what, though).
>
> Ensuring the development of an FoI in WS2
>
> >
> > Alternative "c" gives us the powerful symbolism of having the HR Bylaw
> > in place, even while the road to effectiveness is still being built. (I
> > would argue that this is what we have in the Third Draft Proposal,
> > subject to clearing up ambiguities, but others may differ.)
>
> But no guarantee that the road _will_ actually be built.
>
> >
> > On the other hand, the WS2 process may give us all a better idea of how
> > to craft the Bylaw, which could give us the peculiar result that the HR
> > Bylaw could be amended before it is even effective. This seems to argue
> > in favor of alternative "b," since there is little point in having an
> > "unripe" and dormant Bylaw that is unlikely to be effective "as is."
> > That said, alternative "c" does provide the symbolism of an HR bylaw
> > and the assurance that the bylaw is "in" (even if not "open for
> business").
> >
> > I think we need to sharpen these alternatives a bit more; I hope this
> > will happen very shortly, so we can set the course from here.
> >
>
> Happy to disuss.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net
> > <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>> wrote:
> >
> > Or to put it another way,
> >
> > to have our minds changed for us.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18/01/16 10:09, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> > <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all
> >
> > I agree. It would be tantamount to forgetting the hard work and
> long
> > discussions had in WP4.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Jorge
> >
> > *Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *Im
> > Auftrag
> > von * Dr. Tatiana Tropina
> > *Gesendet:* Montag, 18. Januar 2016 11:00
> > *An:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> > *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 - Human Rights - 1st
> > reading
> >
> > conclusions
> >
> > Dear all,
> > Sorry I found that I missed an important word in my previous
> > email and
> > think this can lead to misunderstanding.
> > I meant there was "NO real dialogue" on consumer trust outside
> > of the
> > new gTLD discussions, while HR have been discussed extensively
> > at WP4
> > and CCWG.
> > Thus, we can't compare consumer trust and HR as re what shall be
> > moved
> > to WS2 completely.
> > Best
> > Tatiana
> >
> > On 18/01/16 10:45, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> >
> > Dear Paul,
> > To answer your question
> >
> > On 18/01/16 08:57, Paul Szyndler wrote:
> >
> > Further, what distinguishes the conversation of human
> rights
> > from our recent discussion on consumer trust?
> >
> > The difference is, as it was pointed in the thread on
> "Christmas
> > Trees and Consumer Trust", that human rights have been
> > extensively
> > discussed during the preparation of the Third Draft Proposal
> > at the
> > WP4 and CCWG, while there has been a real dialogue on
> > consumer trust
> > outside of the new gTLD review discussions.
> > I think comparing human rights issues and implications to the
> > discussion on consumer trust is not feasible - neither in the
> > context of this group nor in the broader context. WP4 has
> > achieved
> > its a compromise and suggested the bylaw language after
> > extensive
> > discussions, so moving the issue of human rights completely
> > to WS2
> > is not justified - at least not if one uses comparison with
> > consumer
> > trust issues for such justification.
> > Best regards
> > Tatiana
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>>
> >
> >
> >
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at 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 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160119/183532ca/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list