[Wp4] Discrete issue: Which bylaws formulation

[Dr. Tatiana Tropina]

Hi Paul,
hi all,
I already wrote a warning in the comments to a Google doc about a strong
opposition against commitment to the UN Guiding principles in the bylaw
+ stated my reasons (on the mailing list and in the comments to the Doc)
why I am against referring to the Ruggie principles in the bylaw language.
I am repeating myself, but again: I suggest to exclude the Principles
from bracketed text (with possible explanation in the text about the
poll + comments to the poll about Principles). Otherwise, if the Ruggie
Principles stay in the bylaw text proposal, I believe it is necessary to
provide an overview of the group discussion, including Paul's warning,
Business constituency public comment against such inclusion and other
comments, like the one I wrote about the fact that Principles are, in my
opinion, are not international human rights law instrument.
I hope those who are supporting the inclusion of the Principles into the
bylaw language can provide their detailed comments, too. Right now,
there is no explanation/justification in the Google doc concerning
support for the inclusion of the UN Principles except the rationale
"Principles appeared in the poll"  - I personally don't think it's
enough to add them into the proposed bylaw language. Especially because
we have WP members and public comments strongly opposing such inclusion.
Well, this is just my opinion. I don't think I have a personal capacity
to exclude anything from the Google doc without agreement between WP4
members.
Best regards
Tatiana

On 11/10/15 20:51, Paul Twomey wrote:
> Tatiana
>
> Would you also include my constant warning (including in the poll)
> about the UN Guiding Principles (especially article 13) running the
> risk of ICANN being held legally liable for the actions of ccTLDs,
> RIRs and other related parities under instructions of authoritarian
> governments' policies?  
>
> Best
>
> Paul
>
> On 10/12/15 3:56 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>> + 1 to supporting option (a) from me.
>> I  would go for the minimal bylaw text (ok, with /legal/ instruments
>> in brackets if necessary). I certainly do not support the inclusion
>> of the UN Guiding Principles in the proposed bylaw text even in
>> brackets. We are summarising public comments, and (if I remember
>> correctly) the only opinion there about guiding principles in the
>> statement from Business Constituency that it doesn't support such a
>> reference. Furthermore, even if we are going to include international
>> human rights law instruments, UN Guiding principles won't be the case
>> because they are neither treaty nor declaration. I doubt they can be
>> characterized as "international human rights law". Last but not
>> least, if we make such inclusion it's getting us too far from the
>> second option of proposed bylaw text, which was supported in the
>> public comments (7 of 23).
>> I would rather suggest to add a paragraph about the poll results and
>> say there that some of the WP4 member who answered the poll suggested
>> to include the UN Guiding principles into the bylaw. We can discuss
>> this issue further when we will be writing explanatory document to
>> the bylaw text.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Tatiana
>>
>> On 11/10/15 16:52, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> a. do we send just the agreed upon minimal bylaws text?
>>> b. or do we also send all the bracketed text?
>>>
>>> While I have been somewhat ambivalent on this issue, I think there is
>>> more support in both the WP and the larger group for minimal text in the
>>> bylaw.  I would support option a.
>>>
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> ---
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wp4 mailing list
>> Wp4 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
>
> -- 
> Dr Paul Twomey
> Managing Director
> Argo P at cific 
>
> US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
> Aust M: +61 416 238 501
>
> www.argopacific.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp4/attachments/20151011/24f5bb21/attachment-0001.html>