Nigel, I was referring to the WP4 agreed text. I know you have issues with it. I also am not fully supportive of it. But it was reflective of the compromises reached in the group. Thanks, Brett Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 11:14 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Executive Summary
were discussing respect for human rights, not adherence. And where did the protocols come in? We should revert to the agreed HR text.
There is no agreed text. You have very significant objections to the evisceration of ICANN's obligations from me and Eberhard Lisse as a start. But I agree that 'protocols' play no part in it. What are they, in this context, anyway? I come back to my original point which has been widely and studiously ignored. If we do NOT refer to a lowest-common denominator baseline such as the UDHR, then a vague reference to 'human rights' could be used to include all sorts of things we don't mean, such as the right to water, or the right to internet access (both of which have been described as human rights). _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community