[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 - Human Rights - 1st reading conclusions
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Jan 19 06:11:01 UTC 2016
I'm not sure that all of the 3 alternatives are so "clear cut."
Does alternative "a" drop the transitional Bylaw that's in the Third Draft
Proposal? If not, what effect does the transitional bylaw have?
Alternative "b" seems fairly clear.
Alternative "c" seems closest to the Third Draft Proposal, with the benefit
that it clarifies the effect of the transitional bylaw. (As of now, the
effect of the transitional bylaw on whether the Human Rights bylaw is "open
for business" is not as clear as it should be.)
If alternative "a" clearly means that the Human Rights bylaw is "open for
business," and that ICANN must abide by the bylaw, and that SO/ACs must
abide by the bylaw, and that ICANN can be taken to task for failing to
abide by the bylaw (up to and including an IRP), all without the Framework
of Interpretation -- then I have some considerable sympathy for the
concerns raised by Paul and by the Board.
If the Bylaw is "open for business," then an *ad hoc* series of discussions
about interpretation and therefore an *ad hoc* set of interpretations will
develop out of necessity, and in many cases those discussions will be held
within ICANN the corporation and between ICANN the corporation and its
counsel. At the same time, there may be efforts in various parts of the
community (having nothing to do with WS2) to react to Board and staff
actions or to proactively provide viewpoints to the Board and staff. This
will just be a free-for-all. By the time the formal efforts in WS2 are
brought forth, these results will have to supplant or compete with or try
to somehow harmonize with all of these *ad hoc *efforts. What a mess that
The only way to hold back the *ad hoc* growth of interpretive bits and
pieces, is for the Bylaw not to be effective until the Framework of
Interpretation is in place. Some may argue that this was the intent of the
transitional bylaw, though perhaps inartfully drafted. Others may argue
that the transitional bylaw means something different (not quite sure what,
Alternative "c" gives us the powerful symbolism of having the HR Bylaw in
place, even while the road to effectiveness is still being built. (I would
argue that this is what we have in the Third Draft Proposal, subject to
clearing up ambiguities, but others may differ.)
On the other hand, the WS2 process may give us all a better idea of how to
craft the Bylaw, which could give us the peculiar result that the HR Bylaw
could be amended before it is even effective. This seems to argue in favor
of alternative "b," since there is little point in having an "unripe" and
dormant Bylaw that is unlikely to be effective "as is." That said,
alternative "c" does provide the symbolism of an HR bylaw and the assurance
that the bylaw is "in" (even if not "open for business").
I think we need to sharpen these alternatives a bit more; I hope this will
happen very shortly, so we can set the course from here.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>
> Or to put it another way,
> to have our minds changed for us.
> On 18/01/16 10:09, Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch wrote:
>> Dear all
>> I agree. It would be tantamount to forgetting the hard work and long
>> discussions had in WP4.
>> *Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *Im Auftrag
>> von * Dr. Tatiana Tropina
>> *Gesendet:* Montag, 18. Januar 2016 11:00
>> *An:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 - Human Rights - 1st reading
>> Dear all,
>> Sorry I found that I missed an important word in my previous email and
>> think this can lead to misunderstanding.
>> I meant there was "NO real dialogue" on consumer trust outside of the
>> new gTLD discussions, while HR have been discussed extensively at WP4
>> and CCWG.
>> Thus, we can't compare consumer trust and HR as re what shall be moved
>> to WS2 completely.
>> On 18/01/16 10:45, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>> Dear Paul,
>> To answer your question
>> On 18/01/16 08:57, Paul Szyndler wrote:
>> Further, what distinguishes the conversation of human rights
>> from our recent discussion on consumer trust?
>> The difference is, as it was pointed in the thread on "Christmas
>> Trees and Consumer Trust", that human rights have been extensively
>> discussed during the preparation of the Third Draft Proposal at the
>> WP4 and CCWG, while there has been a real dialogue on consumer trust
>> outside of the new gTLD review discussions.
>> I think comparing human rights issues and implications to the
>> discussion on consumer trust is not feasible - neither in the
>> context of this group nor in the broader context. WP4 has achieved
>> its a compromise and suggested the bylaw language after extensive
>> discussions, so moving the issue of human rights completely to WS2
>> is not justified - at least not if one uses comparison with consumer
>> trust issues for such justification.
>> Best regards
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community