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