[Wp4] Discrete issue: Which bylaws formulation

[Greg Shatan]

I did not say we're ignoring the poll results.  It's our primary job in
this document to report the public comments, not to decide which
alternatives from the comments the CCWG will get to see, or even what to
recommend.  Providing our poll results is one thing, taking alternatives
away from the CCWG is quite another (and not a good thing, in my opinion).

I'm not pretending to be the "driver of this process."  I think we've been
taking turns driving the process forward, and I'm happy to do my share.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Okay so who decided to ignore the poll results? The WPs? I don't
> understand why you responded in such a manner, there was a poll that was
> made within this WP on the same subject and my understanding is that it is
> to determine what is to be recommended to CCWG.
>
> The question then is why are we still going ahead to recommend what we
> already have consensus within the WP not to recommend.
>
> If this is documented for due diligence purposes then it understandable
> and it will be good if you responded by clarifying and not just stating the
> obvious. Yes I may have missed some meetings where things were further
> discussed/updated and it will be fine if you just point to that and not
> just talk like the driver of this process!
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 12 Oct 2015 21:11, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Seun,
>>
>> Because the WPs are not decision making bodies.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Based on the outcome of the poll, I wonder why option 2 through to 4
>>> will be applicable anymore. I quote below just incase:
>>>
>>> "....In brief, the WP has expressed in a vast majority that No reference
>>> to a specific document should be included in the suggested bylaw text."
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>> On 12 Oct 2015 20:24, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I like this approach.
>>>>
>>>> The wording can be made more concise and less ambgiuous as follows.
>>>>
>>>> Here are the four alternatices.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1.       Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect
>>>> internationally recognized human rights.
>>>>
>>>> 2.      Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect
>>>> the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal
>>>> Declaration of Human Rights.
>>>>
>>>> 3.      Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect
>>>> the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal
>>>> Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and
>>>> Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
>>>> Cultural Rights.
>>>>
>>>> 4.       Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect
>>>> the internationally recognized human rights set out in the Universal
>>>> Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Cultural and
>>>> Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
>>>> Cultural Rights and will carry out its work guided by the UN Guiding
>>>> Principles on Business and Human Rights.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp4/attachments/20151012/078898ad/attachment.html>