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 would be.
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, though).
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.
Greg