[Wp4] Discrete issue: Which bylaws formulation

Mon Oct 12 18:31:08 UTC 2015

I think it would be most clear to present four options as below, which is how I am interpreting the brackets.  I think we could discuss the poll results and then say, based on the comments, the pool and our deliberations  here are the 4 options we encourage be considered.  I think the brackets are confusing.

1.       Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized human rights law.

2.      Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized human rights law reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

3.      Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized human rights law reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) , International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights, (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

4.      Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect internationally recognized human rights law [reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Cultural and Political Rights, (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and implemented in accordance with and guided by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

From: wp4-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 1:57 PM
To: Dr. Tatiana Tropina; Greg Shatan
Cc: wp4 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Wp4] Discrete issue: Which bylaws formulation

Made some comments in the doc.  Meta level: the options for the CCWG should be only 3 or 4 - clearly proposed and reasoned.

Right now the last part looks very complicated and confused.   Much of it should probably go to the supporting doc.

Matthew
On 12/10/2015 18:13, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
Thanks Greg
Well, when the deadline is approaching, so any edit can be a "final edit" :) (Feci quod potui faciant meliora potentes, in a way)
I think the text already looked ok last time I checked it after the changes proposed by Niels a couple of days ago, however, I think there is a bit of confusion at the end about the bracketed language proposed for consideration. There are two options with "bracketed language" in the last part (I think we need to be crystal clear concerning what is actually forwarded to the larger group - I assume, it's a short version) + I think there should be a bit of more details about the poll/results. May be I am mistaken and can't remember exact wording, but I can't access the document in a "normal way" from my mobile phone - can't add the comments, etc. so in fact I can't correct anything.  I don't know what kind of edits you are going to make - if the issues I mentioned above won't be addressed, I can probably live with that...
Again, thanks a lot.
Best
Tanya
On 12/10/15 17:49, Greg Shatan wrote:
I hesitate to call it a "final edit" but I can propose some edits this afternoon, after lunch (NY time), and others can see how that looks.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de<mailto:t.tropina at mpicc.de>> wrote:
+1 to Greg

By the way, the deadline is today, right? I can't edit the document because I am on holiday; have very limited time & access to Internet. Is there anyone who is going to make final edits?

best,
Tatiana

On 12/10/15 16:57, Greg Shatan wrote:
I think that there has been broad opposition to "cherry-picking" human rights.  I would apply this to the Ruggie principles as well.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na<mailto:el at lisse.na>> wrote:
Nigel overlooked the reference to my profession, when we say "Look at"
it usually involves scalpels :-)-O

So, how do the Ruggie principles look like without the subset?

el

On 2015-10-12 13:37, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> Eberhard is misdirecting himself. We don't want to look at THAT subset.
>
> We should be looking at (in set theoretical terms) the relative
> complement subset.
>
>
>
> N.
>
>
>
>
> On 12/10/15 12:27, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
>> Paul,
>>
>> I was not going to die in a ditch about the Ruggie principles, but why
>> don't we look at your subset?
>>
>> el
>>
>> On 2015-10-11 23:03, 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
>> [...]
>>

--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA<mailto:el at lisse.NA>            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733<tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/
_______________________________________________
Wp4 mailing list
Wp4 at icann.org<mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________

Wp4 mailing list

Wp4 at icann.org<mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________
Wp4 mailing list
Wp4 at icann.org<mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________

Wp4 mailing list

Wp4 at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>

+ 44 771 247 2987

________________________________
[Avast logo]<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp4/attachments/20151012/c794c177/attachment-0001.html>