Greg,

+ 1 and +111.
thanks a lot for nailing it down. I absolutely agree.

The purpose of the document is to summarise/analyse public comments. I believe that inclusion/exclusion of Ruggie principles is totally outside of the scope of our task. In the public comments we have neither alternative text suggestion with Ruggie principles nor any support for such inclusion as a comment.
As I already said, these discussions are taking us too far from the substance of the document and from the two options of bylaw language that were the subject of public comments. I think that for the sake of finalising the document (as one of our tasks), the reference to Ruggie principles shall be excluded from the text of proposed bylaw. Once it's done, the document is almost finalised. We can come back to these discussions later while working on other documents.

If we will continue discussing Ruggie principles today (well, tonight here in Europe), there is no change to complete the task till Monday. We won't do it even till next Monday in this case I believe.

PS. I assume there can be an argument that we added UDHR so why not adding Ruggie principles - but UDHR was suggested in public comments, so there is justification to consider such inclusion in the context of the task.

Best regards
Tatiana

On 11/10/15 23:24, Greg Shatan wrote:
Let's go back to first principles for a moment.  I think we are losing sight of our "assignment."

The primary purpose of this document is to provide a neutral synthesis and analysis of the public comments.

A possible secondary purpose of this document is to provide some guidance to the CCWG in considering the public comments and how (if at all) the CCWG Proposal should be revised in light of these comments.

This is not supposed to be a "think piece" independent of the public comments.  I'm not saying that such a document is inappropriate.  But it's not our assignment.

I think the topics under discussion at this point would be more appropriate for another document, and not for the analysis of comments. Indeed, the very idea that we could have a number of disagreements or open issues in an analysis of public comments provides a very significant clue that we have strayed from our task of neutral reportage.  There should be few if any disagreements when it comes to accurately stating the results of the public comment period, and indeed, I think there are few if any disagreements with regard to that part of our document.

It's when we turn to "making news" instead of "reporting news" that we lose our way.  I don't think these topics are out of place in WP4 or in the CCWG, but I think they are out of place in this document.  I think they are more appropriate for the framework or rationale document that we need to produce, or for some other document that is the output of WP4 (but which is not the analysis of comments).  

At this point, I would very strongly urge us to pare back this document and to move the WP's comments, discussions, etc. (except the very few that provide direct guidance to the CCWG in considering a particular comment or comments) into another document (or documents, if we want to get some pieces circulating more quickly into the CCWG, while we continue to work on other pieces).

Greg

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com> 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


--
Dr Paul Twomey
Managing Director
Argo P@cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com
_______________________________________________
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