<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'm not sure that all of the 3 alternatives are so "clear cut."</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Does alternative "a" drop the transitional Bylaw that's in the Third Draft Proposal? If not, what effect does the transitional bylaw have?<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Alternative "b" seems fairly clear.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If the Bylaw is "open for business," then an <i>ad hoc</i> series of discussions about interpretation and therefore an <i>ad hoc</i> 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 <i>ad hoc </i>efforts. What a mess that would be.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The only way to hold back the <i>ad hoc</i> 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). </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.) </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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").</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Nigel Roberts <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Or to put it another way,<br>
<br>
to have our minds changed for us.<span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 18/01/16 10:09, <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a> wrote:<br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
Dear all<br>
<br>
I agree. It would be tantamount to forgetting the hard work and long<br>
discussions had in WP4.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Jorge<br>
<br></span>
*Von:*<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] *Im Auftrag<br>
von * Dr. Tatiana Tropina<br>
*Gesendet:* Montag, 18. Januar 2016 11:00<br>
*An:* <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
*Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 - Human Rights - 1st reading<div><div class="h5"><br>
conclusions<br>
<br>
Dear all,<br>
Sorry I found that I missed an important word in my previous email and<br>
think this can lead to misunderstanding.<br>
I meant there was "NO real dialogue" on consumer trust outside of the<br>
new gTLD discussions, while HR have been discussed extensively at WP4<br>
and CCWG.<br>
Thus, we can't compare consumer trust and HR as re what shall be moved<br>
to WS2 completely.<br>
Best<br>
Tatiana<br>
<br>
On 18/01/16 10:45, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:<br>
<br>
Dear Paul,<br>
To answer your question<br>
<br>
On 18/01/16 08:57, Paul Szyndler wrote:<br>
<br>
Further, what distinguishes the conversation of human rights<br>
from our recent discussion on consumer trust?<br>
<br>
The difference is, as it was pointed in the thread on "Christmas<br>
Trees and Consumer Trust", that human rights have been extensively<br>
discussed during the preparation of the Third Draft Proposal at the<br>
WP4 and CCWG, while there has been a real dialogue on consumer trust<br>
outside of the new gTLD review discussions.<br>
I think comparing human rights issues and implications to the<br>
discussion on consumer trust is not feasible - neither in the<br>
context of this group nor in the broader context. WP4 has achieved<br>
its a compromise and suggested the bylaw language after extensive<br>
discussions, so moving the issue of human rights completely to WS2<br>
is not justified - at least not if one uses comparison with consumer<br>
trust issues for such justification.<br>
Best regards<br>
Tatiana<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<br></div></div>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
</span></blockquote><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>