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

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Avri,

we need to get this right. 

We are not going to let the outcome dictated by arbitrary and self imposed time frames.

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6


> On Aug 6, 2015, at 13:52, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/wp4/attachments/20150806/6ad45c23/attachment.html>