Hi Seun,

You are correct, I'm not advocating any position on the issue, just trying to help identify a path forward. 

The more collaboration and compromise now, the less risk of division later. We owe the community a recommendation as close to consensus as we can reach within the group. 

Obviously, if minority positions are deemed necessary, they should and will be respected, but part of our job is to do the hard work of compromise and try to accommodate everyone's concerns to the extent possible. 

Best,
Keith


On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

So it's really a non-issue to you but you only suggested wording (and way forward) for those who find it to be an issue. Makes sense.

For the record, I am in agreement with the suggested way forward as well but to the extent that we will not have to spend a 3digit legal hours on it. I have heard the money is there anyway, but I don't think the money will keep coming as much ( the lifetime of some of the names delegated in the newgTLD is predictable) so it may be wise to spend wisely.

I think how well an organisation respect "human rights and transparency" would be determined by the operating principles and governing documents of the organisation.

I am a fan of "human rights/transparency" but not without indicating the specific actions that would imply such is happening or otherwise.

Regards

On 30 Jul 2015 10:07 am, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Chris, 

I'll have to defer to others with more expertise on this one.  It's a good question that should be addressed. 

Best, 
Keith

On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:

Keith,

This looks interesting. Could we think of an example of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment? Or something it would not be able to do? 



Cheers,


Chris


On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:16 , Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:

Hi Avri,

In order to tie your suggestion directly to the language in Secretary Strickling's April 2014 written congressional testimony (included in a prior email) and to reduce concerns about scope creep, would language along these lines be acceptable to you?

"Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information."

Speaking personally, I could probably support this formulation. To be clear, I have not discussed this with the RySG, but it's consistent with the requirements outlined by NTIA so I think it's certainly worth considering.

I'm not advocating including this in the Bylaws, but I'm not objecting to it either. However, if we don't reach consensus for adding to the Bylaws, I definitely think this is worth further consideration in WS2 and would support an explicit reference using this or similar language and timetable for doing so.

Regards,
Keith

On Jul 30, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Within its mission, ICANN will be committed to respect fundamental
 human rights in its operationsespecially with regard to the exercise
 of free expression or the free flow of information.
_______________________________________________
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