[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mission statement and human rights

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Jan 28 16:21:17 UTC 2016

HR should be referenced in intermediate Bylaws and drafted at WS2. Based on our dis discussions and REC . once FOI is ready the final legal  text shall  be approved and included in the Definitive Bylaws. In the meantime Board,s firm commitment once approved by CCWG shall apply
Kabouss . 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 28 Jan 2016, at 16:33, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> On 28-Jan-16 09:25, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 02:05:26PM +0000, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>>> ICANN must simply respect human rights. That's it.
>> I wish I knew what this is supposed to mean for ICANN action, though.
>> I'm trying to imagine something where ICANN would act differently in
>> the presence or absence of the bylaw, and I've been unable to come up
>> with anything.
> As I have mentioned before, for me the prime issue is that human rights
> impact analysis be done as part of the PDP process as opposed to just
> waiting to see if some government agency slaps our wrist afterwards for
> not having considered the impact of, e.g., freedom of expression or an
> open internet.  At this point we just do stuff and then wait to see if
> NTIA, or any other federal agency, or the GAC lets us know that we have
> messed up.  Requiring that we respect Human Rights includes it being in
> scope as a consideration that is understood and discussed when policy is
> made and considered for approval.
> Without the bylaw such considerations remain out of scope in a future
> where there is no backstop for our actions.   i believe that taking on
> this responsibility is our only reliable response to the NTIA
> requirement.  And I believe that the fears of such a bylaw have been
> shown to be emotional and not fact based.
>> (That's also, I suppose, why I don't really have an
>> opinion about what ought to be done here, except that we should come
>> to a speedy conclusion so that the document can ship and we can get
>> the transition over with.)
> I see this as a gating issue.
> Though I do not think our work can ever be called speedy, even if we
> were to reach consensus this week.
> And this is just the start of the transition, unless you also believe
> that implementation and  WS2 are not part of the transition.
> avri
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list