In terms of next steps, here is a list I put in an email about a week ago, slightly adapted for the current context.

study/analysis/discussion of the underlying documents (treaties, conventions, guidelines, standards, etc.) (which in turn requires determining which documents are relevant -- there have been several helpful suggestions but that can't automatically be taken as exhaustive or on-target),

understanding the rights put forth in these documents
(
and
any other rights
put forth
as human rights in the WG)
,
understanding whether all rights under discussion are in fact "human rights",
understanding how these rights may interact and be balanced amongst themselves,

understanding how these rights relate to and interact with ICANN's mission and activities,

understanding how these rights interact
with other rights and obligations in play at ICANN (including the range of possible outcomes of such interactions and how these interactions would take place and be resolved in the ICANN framework),
understanding how these rights interact with ICANN's existing obligations under US federal, state and local laws and regulations (some of which embody, in differing fashions and degrees, relevant international treaties and conventions)
how this relates (if at all) to ICANN's Corporate Social Responsibility and what efforts have been made or need to be made in that regard
,

find out
how other organizations similar to ICANN
(e.g., I* organizations)
have dealt with these issues,
determining
which Bylaws
amendment is the most appropriate outcome relating to this issue (and noting that various proposals have been floated in recent weeks),
understanding the interaction between such an amendment and other
B
ylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, and other normative and operative ICANN documents,
determining what efforts may need to take place
and what groups may need to be formed
as a result of
a Bylaw
amendment (including without limitation PDP (or non-PDP) GNSO Working Groups or Cross-Community Working Groups
)
,
understanding and integrating with other efforts taking place in and around ICANN (GAC WG, "Working Party"),
what an "impact analysis" would entail (who, when, how, what criteria, what deliverable, what scope, what triggers, etc.),
whether there are other "impact analyses" that should also be put in place at this time or which are already in place,
what the result, effects and consequences (intentional and unintentional) of various impact analysis outcomes would be (either on present policy and implementation, on future policy and implementation and on other ICANN activities).

I think the last 4 points can be left to WS2. For the rest, we'll need to balance work in WS1 vs. WS2, but I think each requires some work in WS1 to have a framework of understanding the meaning and consequences of a Bylaws amendment, and to determine the best way forward in WS1. A number of these could (and probably should) generate (or be recast as) "Stress Tests."

This is very much a first draft (or 1.1, since I did revisit it once), so further contributions and revisions are welcomed.

Greg

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Nope. Nothing hidden and nefarious here. I'll leave that to this guy: Greg Satan Twitter Page

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Avri,

same tactics as usual.

Not unexpected.

el

--
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Aug 6, 2015, at 20:44, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Avri,

You are certainly entitled to express yourself, and I look forward to a robust and productive discussion. Again, there is no intention to obfuscate. The intention is to clarify, which I believe will build a stronger consensus.

Greg

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,

Freedom of expression allows me to object to the statements you make.
I asked nicely, with a please even. I did not attempt to regulate you
speech.

I am objecting to what I perceive to be tactics to obfuscate and make
things seem hidden and nefarious.
That too is freedom of expression.

avri

On 06-Aug-15 15:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I really don't think using a 500 year old colloquialism "cheapens the
> discussion." I also find it ironic to find this admonition in a
> discussion about, inter alia, freedom of expression. Political
> correctness, trigger words, and other such stuff are a not
> inconsequential threat to freedom of expression and freedom of ideas
> -- starting with a kernel of good intentions, and then becoming quite
> damaging....
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org
> <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 06-Aug-15 14:28, Greg Shatan wrote:
> > Otherwise, we are just buying a pig in a poke.
>
>
> I really have trouble with such a reference to human rights.
> Please do
> not cheapen this discussion.
>
> avri
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

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

_______________________________________________
Wp4 mailing list
Wp4@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________
Wp4 mailing list
Wp4@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4

_______________________________________________
Wp4 mailing list
Wp4@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4