[Wp4] Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected

[Nigel Roberts]

Dear colleagues

While I very much appreciate the postive intent of the different texts 
proposed for a by-law, (and indeed have commented upon/contributed to 
several), I would like to suggest that the most appropriate way forward 
in starting WP4 might not be to compare and contrast competing 
worldviews with a view to synthesis, but instead to zoom out for a 
second, and let us look at this a little more holistically (or as a 
lawyer might put it, purposively rather than literally).

With that mind I gratefully adopt and recommend the earlier suggestion 
(made by Avri, I think), that the United Nations' "Guiding Principles on 
Business and Human Rights" on the issue of human rights and 
transnational corporations are directly relevant to the purpose we are 
trying to acheive; and accordingly, we perhaps start out by developing a 
common understanding of what we want to achieve in the (very much 
needed) By-Law that we expect to see come out of this.


Paul Twomey, Kavouss Arasteh and others clearly highlight the dangers of 
too-wide drafting, leading to mission creep.

I agree with this.

And I also submit that the dangers of an over-narrow, or too-literal 
approach would lead to the proposed by-law (whatever it says) being 
ineffective and irrelevant.

Perhaps we should start by reviewing how ICANN (*WITHIN ITS MISSION*) 
might have effects on fundamental rights of the people and organisations 
it comes into contact with, and from there we can work out how to 
integrate a commitment that becomes part of the organisational DNA such 
that respect for fundamental rights is seen as a positive aspect of 
ICANN's work, and not a burden to be reluctantly shouldered?



On 08/05/2015 02:42 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear All,
> While I agree with many of the texts / options referred to above, my