Avri, we need to get this right. We are not going to let the outcome dictated by arbitrary and self imposed time frames. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Aug 6, 2015, at 13:52, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
While this is important, isn't this a broader discussion than is need for WS1? This seems to me to be the work we need to commit ourselves to for WS2, not the work we need to do to get a bylaws value commitment in WS1.
So while it will be good for everyone to read this document, the extensive process suggested below seems to be front loading the issue. I would not wish to see such front loading used to [accidentally] undo the decisions already made about needing wording for WS1.
avri
On 06-Aug-15 08:05, Nigel Roberts wrote: Dear colleagues
While I very much appreciate the postive intent of the different texts proposed for a by-law, (and indeed have commented upon/contributed to several), I would like to suggest that the most appropriate way forward in starting WP4 might not be to compare and contrast competing worldviews with a view to synthesis, but instead to zoom out for a second, and let us look at this a little more holistically (or as a lawyer might put it, purposively rather than literally).
With that mind I gratefully adopt and recommend the earlier suggestion (made by Avri, I think), that the United Nations' "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights" on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations are directly relevant to the purpose we are trying to acheive; and accordingly, we perhaps start out by developing a common understanding of what we want to achieve in the (very much needed) By-Law that we expect to see come out of this.
Paul Twomey, Kavouss Arasteh and others clearly highlight the dangers of too-wide drafting, leading to mission creep.
I agree with this.
And I also submit that the dangers of an over-narrow, or too-literal approach would lead to the proposed by-law (whatever it says) being ineffective and irrelevant.
Perhaps we should start by reviewing how ICANN (*WITHIN ITS MISSION*) might have effects on fundamental rights of the people and organisations it comes into contact with, and from there we can work out how to integrate a commitment that becomes part of the organisational DNA such that respect for fundamental rights is seen as a positive aspect of ICANN's work, and not a burden to be reluctantly shouldered?
On 08/05/2015 02:42 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, While I agree with many of the texts / options referred to above, my
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