[Wp4] Discrete issue: Which bylaws formulation

[Dr. Tatiana Tropina]

Avri,
I wouldn't mind to list anything (with the proper rationale, comments
and discussions) as a possible option but not in the document we are
working on now.
The main point is that right now we are summarising public comments.
This is the very and the only purpose of the current document - and
there was no suggestion to include Ruggie principles in the public
comments. Only on the poll - but the poll was created to address
(several!) public comments suggesting the inclusion of UDHR. We are
going far beyond the task we are supposed to perform without having even
a tiny chance to reach an agreement on the issue, which is actually
irrelevant for the current document.
Unfortunately, we can't keep it absolutely simple and list none of the
docs (after deleting Ruggie and whatever else), because UDHR was in the
comments and this issue has to be addressed/solved somehow. I am
strongly against the inclusion of UDHR as well, but as much as I dislike
this proposal I have to be fair and agree that we have to include (in
brackets) it because it was "agreed" on the call and it appeared in the
comments.
We can discuss/include Ruggie and whatever else on a later stage, no? We
have more options to discuss this later.
Actually, I stated this so many times already so I probably have to give
in, stop spamming the mailing list and rather hear what other WP4
members say :)
Cheers
Tanya


On 12/10/15 00:11, Avri Doria wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4