+1 based on discussions on this list, I hope it's as obvious as we think.

Cheers!

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 12 Oct 2015 06:35, "Matthew Shears" <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
Hi

This is stating the obvious I think: the analysis document is supposed to do two things -
1) summarize the public comment (including areas of refinement and divergence) as well as input from the LA meeting and
2) determine if there are additional options (beyond the proposal) for the CCWG to consider.
In the case of 2) the obvious one is the result of comments on the two bylaws text options.  If these results are inconclusive, the WP can propose an alternative  but I believe it should still largely reflect comments and inputs received.  If there is reference to the principles it should be noted in the analysis - as should the related discussion within the WP.  But, it would be wrong to introduce options for the CCWG that do not reflect the thrust of inputs from the PC and other discussions.

Matthew

On 12/10/2015 06:11, Avri Doria wrote:
Ok, so I am confused, i thought the document was both doing comment
analysis and sending forward recommended bylaw text.  while just comment
analysis was the goal for the other groups, i did not think that was the
only goal for this group.

If this is just analysis with no forward looking suggestion of the text
for bylaws, and indeed the Principles were not mentioned in the comments
anywhere (oversight on my part) then you would win.   But they are
mentioned in the comments, if only in a comment by the business
constituency against their inclusion.  BTW, so are the disability rights.

avri


On 11-Oct-15 18:41, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
Avri,
I wouldn't mind to list anything (with the proper rationale, comments
and discussions) as a possible option but not in the document we are
working on now.
The main point is that right now we are summarising public comments.
This is the very and the only purpose of the current document - and
there was no suggestion to include Ruggie principles in the public
comments. Only on the poll - but the poll was created to address
(several!) public comments suggesting the inclusion of UDHR. We are
going far beyond the task we are supposed to perform without having even
a tiny chance to reach an agreement on the issue, which is actually
irrelevant for the current document.
Unfortunately, we can't keep it absolutely simple and list none of the
docs (after deleting Ruggie and whatever else), because UDHR was in the
comments and this issue has to be addressed/solved somehow. I am
strongly against the inclusion of UDHR as well, but as much as I dislike
this proposal I have to be fair and agree that we have to include (in
brackets) it because it was "agreed" on the call and it appeared in the
comments.
We can discuss/include Ruggie and whatever else on a later stage, no? We
have more options to discuss this later.
Actually, I stated this so many times already so I probably have to give
in, stop spamming the mailing list and rather hear what other WP4
members say :)
Cheers
Tanya


On 12/10/15 00:11, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,

First let me reiterate, I am fine with listing none of the documents.

However, if we go beyond that and start listing documents, I believe the
Ruggie principles are an important guidance, since they not only include
references to the fundamental documents, but it creates a possible
framework for actually doing it.  As I am suggesting they only be listed
as guidance as a framework.  otherwise it is just a bunch of references
that may or may not be applicable with no framework for determining the
applicability.

But again if we keep it simple and list none of the docs, I am
comfortable leaving this one out as well.

Or we just move the entire conversation to the CCWG.  I am fine with
that as well.

avri




On 11-Oct-15 17:03, Paul Twomey wrote:
Nigel

I am of a similar view as Tatiana's below.

My stated concern has always been with some subset sections of the
Ruggie principles.  Not necessarily with UDHR.

Paul

On 10/12/15 6:22 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
Nigel,
I think there is confusion about the matter we are actually trying to
discuss here, namely, which instruments should stay in the bracketed
text.
You refer to UDHR - but it's not the issue. A reference to UDHR was
suggested in the group discussion and we decided that it will stay in
the bracketed text of the proposed bylaw language as one of the choices.
I am for more general bylaw language, but I can live the inclusion of
UDHR and other two legal instruments proposed because they reflect
international human rights law. So this bracketed text will stay in the
proposed language anyway.
The discussion here, however, focuses on the inclusion of the Ruggie
principles, not UDHR. And whatever issue is raised as a potential
concern - be it legal issue, potential liability or just simply the
absence of even a rough consensus between the members of the group on a
possible inclusion of Ruggie principles into the bylaw language and
possible consequences of such inclusion - it means, IMHO, that we can't
propose to include UN Guiding principles.
Proper legal instruments, such as UDHR, will stay in brackets as a
possible choice in any case.
That's how I see it.
Best regards
Tatiana

On 11/10/15 21:00, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Paul

What legal connection does ICANN have to ccTLDs that would make it
potentially liable in the way you suggest.

This is a serious question. You have raised it as a /legal/ issue here.

I repeat my submission that to omit a reference to the applicable
human rights standard (UDHR) instrument could potentially make ICANN
liable under other instruments.

On 11/10/15 19:51, Paul Twomey wrote:

ICANN being held legally liable for the actions of ccTLDs, RIRs and
_______________________________________________
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

---
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



---
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

--

Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
mshears@cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987


---
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