[Wp4] Discrete issue: Which bylaws formulation

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

First let me reiterate, I am fine with listing none of the documents.

However, if we go beyond that and start listing documents, I believe the
Ruggie principles are an important guidance, since they not only include
references to the fundamental documents, but it creates a possible
framework for actually doing it.  As I am suggesting they only be listed
as guidance as a framework.  otherwise it is just a bunch of references
that may or may not be applicable with no framework for determining the
applicability.

But again if we keep it simple and list none of the docs, I am
comfortable leaving this one out as well.

Or we just move the entire conversation to the CCWG.  I am fine with
that as well.

avri




On 11-Oct-15 17:03, Paul Twomey wrote:
> Nigel
>
> I am of a similar view as Tatiana's below.
>
> My stated concern has always been with some subset sections of the
> Ruggie principles.  Not necessarily with UDHR.
>
> Paul
>
> On 10/12/15 6:22 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>> Nigel,
>> I think there is confusion about the matter we are actually trying to
>> discuss here, namely, which instruments should stay in the bracketed
>> text.
>> You refer to UDHR - but it's not the issue. A reference to UDHR was
>> suggested in the group discussion and we decided that it will stay in
>> the bracketed text of the proposed bylaw language as one of the choices.
>> I am for more general bylaw language, but I can live the inclusion of
>> UDHR and other two legal instruments proposed because they reflect
>> international human rights law. So this bracketed text will stay in the
>> proposed language anyway.
>> The discussion here, however, focuses on the inclusion of the Ruggie
>> principles, not UDHR. And whatever issue is raised as a potential
>> concern - be it legal issue, potential liability or just simply the
>> absence of even a rough consensus between the members of the group on a
>> possible inclusion of Ruggie principles into the bylaw language and
>> possible consequences of such inclusion - it means, IMHO, that we can't
>> propose to include UN Guiding principles.
>> Proper legal instruments, such as UDHR, will stay in brackets as a
>> possible choice in any case.
>> That's how I see it.
>> Best regards
>> Tatiana
>>
>> On 11/10/15 21:00, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> What legal connection does ICANN have to ccTLDs that would make it
>>> potentially liable in the way you suggest.
>>>
>>> This is a serious question. You have raised it as a /legal/ issue here.
>>>
>>> I repeat my submission that to omit a reference to the applicable
>>> human rights standard (UDHR) instrument could potentially make ICANN
>>> liable under other instruments.
>>>
>>> On 11/10/15 19:51, Paul Twomey wrote:
>>>
>>>> ICANN being held legally liable for the actions of ccTLDs, RIRs and
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>


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