<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Avri and Andrew's emails raise a question about the fundamental intention of this Bylaw, both generally and specificallyas it relates to policy development:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Is the intent to maintain ICANN's commitment to Human Rights after the transitionand provide a bulwark against any claims (well founded or otherwise) that the transition empowers or allows ICANN to walk away from its commitment to Human Rights? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Or is the intent to create new and different commitments to Human Rights that do not currently exist? Specifically, is the intent to create a basis for new and different Human Rights considerations in policy development (and for that matter, AC advice) beyond what now exists?<br></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 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 Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<span class=""><br>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 03:02:12PM -0500, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
> discussion of policy development. At this point once the transition<br>
> occurs, assuming it does at some point, people will be able to claim<br>
> that as a private company human rights do not concern us. and therefore<br>
> are out of scope in policy development.<br>
<br>
</span>I hadn't understood that angle before, so thanks for stating it. But<br>
I don't see how if follows.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that the whole point of the tussle of policy<br>
development is to consider a wide variety of considerations and input.<br>
It seems to me that the source of that lies in the community, and<br>
therefore it is the community, and not the corporation, that needs the<br>
commitment to human rights. Why isn't it better that the human rights<br>
considerations be part of the constraint on some or all of the various<br>
constituency groups, rather than part of the ICANN bylaws? (In case<br>
it's not clear, I don't intend that as a rhetorical question.)<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">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>