<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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: </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><ul><li>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),</li><li>understanding the rights put forth in these documents and put forth by proponents of this amendment,</li><li>understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact "human rights",</li><li>understanding how these rights relate to and interact with ICANN's mission and activities, </li><li>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),</li><li>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)</li><li>understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"),</li><li>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</li><li>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),</li><li>understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other bylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative ICANN documents,</li><li>what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.), </li><li>whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which are already in place, </li><li>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).</li><li>how other organizations similar to ICANN have dealt with these issues,</li><li>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.</li></ul></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'm sure there's more, but that's what comes to mind off the top of my head.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">It would be premature (to put it mildly) to propose to amend the ICANN bylaws without putting this work in beforehand.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I look forward to working on this in WS2.</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 Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
One smal typos in the mission document<br>
<br>
> . Others felt that this issue should be address in Work Stream 1.<br>
<br>
should be addressed.<br>
<br>
Also the fact that the 'compromise' avoids inserting any mention of<br>
human rights impact analysis in the bylaws as part WS1 is still a major<br>
deficit in my mind. I beleive that given our consensus commitment to<br>
human rights as stated in the paper, this is the least we can do and<br>
does not involve invovle careful consideration. In fact the output of<br>
such impact analyses would be the sort of information WS2 will need for<br>
doing its 'careful consideration'. Anyone who has read the report that<br>
Holly made available should realize how small and uncontroversial this<br>
action is in the scope of actions we could be taking were we actually<br>
committing ourselves to adherence to human rights concerns within<br>
ICANN's mission.<br>
<br>
I had understood that during a segment of a meeting I missed there had<br>
been a decision to register a question on inclusion of a minimal human<br>
rights impact analysis clause in the bylaws the next release. Is that<br>
still to be expected? Or does that depend on the existence of a<br>
minority report?<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
On 28-Jul-15 22:17, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
> Will send PDFs shortly<br>
><br>
> J. Beckwith Burr<br>
><br>
</span>> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer<br>
<span class="">><br>
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<br>
><br>
</span>> Office: <a href="tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932">+ 1.202.533.2932</a> Mobile:<br>
> <a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367">+1.202.352.6367</a> / <a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>> / <a href="http://www.neustar.biz" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.neustar.biz</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> WP2 mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org">WP2@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a><br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
WP2 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WP2@icann.org">WP2@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>