[Wp4] Discrete issue: Which bylaws formulation

[Avri Doria]

I can go along with this.

My only issue was not leaving Ruggie out of any grabbag version. 


avri


On 11-Oct-15 11:22, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> I do not support the idea of a call.
>
> I think that, to be formal, we must create two alternatives, both of
> which are "minimal". One which refers to the UDHR and one which does not.
>
> These two alternatives must be then placed before Members of the CCWG
> (i.e. not us participants) as the people chartered in this regard.
>
>
> I personally support the UDHR verson, particularly after talking with
> Markus Kummer recently.
>
> Mr reasons are as follows:
>
> 1.    It's the 'minimal' HR text that is support globally. While I
> like the business principles, I think it's a step to far at this stage.
>
> 2.    Leaving out a reference to any document exposes ICANN to the
> possibility that ANY human rights instrument or idea could be forced
> on is, such as the right to drinking water.
>
>
>
>
> On 11/10/15 15:52, 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
>
>


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