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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

While this is important, isn't this a broader discussion than is need
for WS1?  This seems to me to be the work we need to commit ourselves to
for WS2, not the work we need to do to get a bylaws value commitment in WS1.

So while it will be good for everyone to read this document, the
extensive process suggested below seems to be front loading the issue.
I would not wish to see such front loading used to [accidentally] undo
the decisions already made about needing wording for WS1.

avri


On 06-Aug-15 08:05, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
> 
> 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus