[WP2] updated documents from this morning

Wed Jul 29 15:37:23 UTC 2015

The first "impact analyses" (and stress tests) that need to be done are
those relating to the inclusion of the suggested human rights language in
the bylaws.  This requires:

   - study/analysis/discussion of the underlying documents (treaties,
   conventions, guidelines, standards, etc.) (which in turn requires
   determining which documents are relevant -- there have been several helpful
   suggestions but that can't automatically be taken as exhaustive or
   on-target),
   - understanding the rights put forth in these documents and put forth by
   proponents of this amendment,
   - understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact "human
   rights",
   - understanding how these rights relate to and interact with ICANN's
   mission and activities,
   - understanding how these rights may interact and be balanced amongst
   themselves, and with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN
   (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions and how
   these interactions would take place and be resolved in the ICANN framework),
   - understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing
   obligations under US federal, state and local laws and regulations (some of
   which embody, in differing fashions and degrees, relevant international
   treaties and conventions)
   - understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and
   around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"),
   - determining what efforts and groups may need to take place as a result
   of (or conceivably, instead of) this amendment (including without
   limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or Cross-Community Working
   Groups
   - determining whether this particular amendment is the most appropriate
   outcome relating to this issue (and noting that various proposals have been
   floated in recent weeks),
   - understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other
   bylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative
   ICANN documents,
   - what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria,
   what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.),
   - whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in
   place at this time or which are already in place,
   - what the result, effects and consequences (intentional and
   unintentional) of various impact analysis outcomes would be (either on
   present policy and implementation, on future policy and implementation and
   on other ICANN activities).
   - how other organizations similar to ICANN have dealt with these issues,
   - how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's Corporate Social
   Responsibility and what efforts have been made or need to be made in that
   regard.

I'm sure there's more, but that's what comes to mind off the top of my head.

It would be premature (to put it mildly) to propose to amend the ICANN
bylaws without putting this work in beforehand.

This should be a priority item for WS2, so the subject gets the time and
attention it needs in order to be fully considered and an outcome arrived
at.  One could argue that this deserves a formal cross-community working
group of its own (and that could be an outcome of the process outlined
above), but we may as well "strike while the iron is hot" and use this
existing platform and the momentum built up in the last few weeks to press
forward in WS2, rather than regrouping in another manner.

One of the main tasks of WS1 is to keep the gates open for work such as
this to be done in WS2 and that outcome of this work will be given the same
treatment as if it were done in WS1.  If there are any concerns in that
regard, that is in itself a "stress test" of WS1, and not a reason to make
this a WS1 item.

I look forward to working on this in WS2.

Greg

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> One smal typos in the mission document
>
> > .  Others felt that this issue should be address in Work Stream 1.
>
> should be addressed.
>
> Also the fact that the 'compromise' avoids inserting any mention of
> human rights impact analysis in the bylaws as part WS1 is still a major
> deficit in my mind.  I beleive that given our consensus commitment to
> human rights as stated in the paper, this is the least we can do and
> does not involve invovle careful consideration.  In fact the output of
> such impact analyses would be the sort of information WS2 will need for
> doing its 'careful consideration'.  Anyone who has read the report that
> Holly made available should realize how small and uncontroversial this
> action is in the scope of actions we could be taking were we actually
> committing ourselves to adherence to human rights concerns within
> ICANN's mission.
>
> I had understood that during a segment of a meeting I missed there had
> been a decision to register a question on inclusion of a minimal human
> rights impact analysis clause in the bylaws the next release.  Is that
> still to be expected?  Or does that depend on the existence of a
> minority report?
>
> Thanks
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 28-Jul-15 22:17, Burr, Becky wrote:
> > Will send PDFs shortly
> >
> > J. Beckwith Burr
> >
> > *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
> >
> > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
> >
> > Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:
> > +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz
> > <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WP2 mailing list
> > WP2 at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP2 mailing list
> WP2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150729/2b63e79c/attachment-0001.html>