[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mission statement and human rights

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Thu Jan 28 17:25:50 UTC 2016


The problem with a firm commitment by the Board is that it  something
that can be undone or changed by a future Board with ease and at their
will.  Unlike a bylaw which involves a multistakeholder process.

Without the bylaw, there is no guarantee.


On 28-Jan-16 11:21, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> 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

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list