[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mission statement and human rights
nigel at channelisles.net
Thu Jan 28 17:38:42 UTC 2016
But do you want a cleverly drafted by-law that guarantees that human
rights are not required to be taken into account (whilst appearing to
say the contrary), or a word-is-my-bond committment from the current
Board, who are at least, a lot more trustworthy than some Boards that
there were heretofore?
You can only pick one.
On 28/01/16 17:25, Avri Doria wrote:
> The problem with a firm commitment by the Board is that it something
> that can be undone or changed by a future Board with ease and at their
> will. Unlike a bylaw which involves a multistakeholder process.
> Without the bylaw, there is no guarantee.
> On 28-Jan-16 11:21, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> HR should be referenced in intermediate Bylaws and drafted at WS2. Based on our dis discussions and REC . once FOI is ready the final legal text shall be approved and included in the Definitive Bylaws. In the meantime Board,s firm commitment once approved by CCWG shall apply
>> Kabouss .
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On 28 Jan 2016, at 16:33, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>> On 28-Jan-16 09:25, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 02:05:26PM +0000, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>>>>> ICANN must simply respect human rights. That's it.
>>>> I wish I knew what this is supposed to mean for ICANN action, though.
>>>> I'm trying to imagine something where ICANN would act differently in
>>>> the presence or absence of the bylaw, and I've been unable to come up
>>>> with anything.
>>> As I have mentioned before, for me the prime issue is that human rights
>>> impact analysis be done as part of the PDP process as opposed to just
>>> waiting to see if some government agency slaps our wrist afterwards for
>>> not having considered the impact of, e.g., freedom of expression or an
>>> open internet. At this point we just do stuff and then wait to see if
>>> NTIA, or any other federal agency, or the GAC lets us know that we have
>>> messed up. Requiring that we respect Human Rights includes it being in
>>> scope as a consideration that is understood and discussed when policy is
>>> made and considered for approval.
>>> Without the bylaw such considerations remain out of scope in a future
>>> where there is no backstop for our actions. i believe that taking on
>>> this responsibility is our only reliable response to the NTIA
>>> requirement. And I believe that the fears of such a bylaw have been
>>> shown to be emotional and not fact based.
>>>> (That's also, I suppose, why I don't really have an
>>>> opinion about what ought to be done here, except that we should come
>>>> to a speedy conclusion so that the document can ship and we can get
>>>> the transition over with.)
>>> I see this as a gating issue.
>>> Though I do not think our work can ever be called speedy, even if we
>>> were to reach consensus this week.
>>> And this is just the start of the transition, unless you also believe
>>> that implementation and WS2 are not part of the transition.
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community