[Wp4] Discrete issue: Which bylaws formulation

Mon Oct 12 11:02:16 UTC 2015

+1 based on discussions on this list, I hope it's as obvious as we think.

Cheers!

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 12 Oct 2015 06:35, "Matthew Shears" <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> Hi
>
> This is stating the obvious I think: the analysis document is supposed to
> do two things -
> 1) summarize the public comment (including areas of refinement and
> divergence) as well as input from the LA meeting and
> 2) determine if there are additional options (beyond the proposal) for the
> CCWG to consider.
> In the case of 2) the obvious one is the result of comments on the two
> bylaws text options.  If these results are inconclusive, the WP can propose
> an alternative  but I believe it should still largely reflect comments and
> inputs received.  If there is reference to the principles it should be
> noted in the analysis - as should the related discussion within the WP.
> But, it would be wrong to introduce options for the CCWG that do not
> reflect the thrust of inputs from the PC and other discussions.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 12/10/2015 06:11, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Ok, so I am confused, i thought the document was both doing comment
>> analysis and sending forward recommended bylaw text.  while just comment
>> analysis was the goal for the other groups, i did not think that was the
>> only goal for this group.
>>
>> If this is just analysis with no forward looking suggestion of the text
>> for bylaws, and indeed the Principles were not mentioned in the comments
>> anywhere (oversight on my part) then you would win.   But they are
>> mentioned in the comments, if only in a comment by the business
>> constituency against their inclusion.  BTW, so are the disability rights.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 11-Oct-15 18:41, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
> ---
> 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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp4/attachments/20151012/93d3fa42/attachment-0001.html>