[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2 - 27-28 September Plenary Agenda and Materials - 1 of 2 - FoI text proposal to bridge divergences

[avri doria]

Hi,

My only other point, and the reason I threw in with the proposed edit is
because it is important that in be listed among the international legal
instruments that may pertain. 

On the imperfect fit issue: which of these international instruments
fits ICANN exactly?

And while I subscribe to the notion of ICANN exceptionalism as a
multistakeholder organization as much as anyone, I do not believe that
the Organization and its operations and governance is fundamentally
different.

thanks

avri


On 29-Sep-17 14:18, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Avri,
>
> Thanks for your explanation.  I understand where you and Nigel are
> each coming from now.
>
> I agree with your points regarding non-profits and Ruggie.
>
> Reading Nigel's email, I thought he was advancing the strawman that
> the only reason Ruggie is a bad fit for ICANN is that it's a
> non-profit.  My goal was to point out that ICANN's unique role makes
> it unlike a business at all (non-profit or for-profit), and that this
> is the primary reason Ruggie doesn't fit.
>
> But I agree that the nonprofit status poses additional challenges.
>
> Finally, none of this is to say that Ruggie should not be considered
> in the implementation of the Human Rights Core Value -- which is
> already supported in the Considerations portion of the document.
>
> It is to say that Ruggie should not be used to interpret the meaning
> of the Bylaw itself.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:30 PM avri doria <avri at apc.org
> <mailto:avri at apc.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I disagree.  It is one of the factors that makes certain parts of the
>     Guidelines less appropriate for ICANN than for GE.  One of the things
>     several of us attempted during the long course of the subgroup, before
>     the matter was referred to the plenary, was to get Ruggie to to
>     produce
>     an explanatory version specific for Not-for-profit as he has done for
>     other groups.
>
>     So my two recommended edits, i.e inclusion of the "not-for-profit"
>     modifier and the phrase "as appropriate" were in recognition of this
>     being the case.
>
>     avri
>
>
>
>     On 29-Sep-17 03:23, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On 29/09/17 07:23, Greg Shatan wrote:
>     >> Whether ICANN is non-profit or not is beside the point.  That
>     is not
>     >> the issue.
>     > Agreed. It is entirely beside the point and has no place in any
>     > statement as if it did.
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > 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