But do you want a cleverly drafted by-law that guarantees that human rights are not required to be taken into account (whilst appearing to say the contrary), or a word-is-my-bond committment from the current Board, who are at least, a lot more trustworthy than some Boards that there were heretofore?

You can only pick one.

On 28/01/16 17:25, Avri Doria wrote:

Hi,

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.

avri

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@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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community