No I suspect it is not this. On this working group we have to remember that the Board (and US DoC) and most of the registries and users of the IETF protocols and the worlds ISPs etc who are dependent on the Internet Protocols consider that the greatest public good is that the system, and especially the IANA functions, operate smoothly 7x24x365. This means that the Internet itself continues to run 7x24x365. That is the sort of public interest test they are applying. And their response indicated that they were concerned, despite our attempt to try to put "Chinese walls" around the how to operationise our wording to be worked out in a year, that it would potentially effect this. It would be best to engage the Board members on the CCWG to understand better what scenarios they identified with the language. (And I think it would be good for us to give concrete examples of actual breach of human rights within ICANN that we are concerned about - that can focus the minds/conversation) Paul Twomey On 12/19/15 1:13 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
It’s OK Niels, they also think that increased transparency is against the global public interest. I infer that they think that the GPI is equivalent to whatever gives them the least amount of constraint and the greatest amount of obscured power.
To say I am disappointed in the Board is to understate the matter.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
Paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com <mailto:Paul.rosenzweig@gmail.com>
+1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Costa Rica: +506 7008 3964
Our travel blog: www.paulandkatyexcellentadventure.blogspot.com <http://www.paulandkatyexcellentadventure.blogspot.com/>
My professional blog: www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/>
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=ema...>
*From:*wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Niels ten Oever *Sent:* Friday, December 18, 2015 5:34 AM *To:* wp4@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Wp4] Board comments on Annex 6
Pardon me. This time with attachment.
Best,
Niels
On 18 December 2015 18:02:09 GMT+08:00, Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org <mailto:lists@digitaldissidents.org>> wrote:
Dear all,
By now you have probably all seen the comment of the board on the proposed raft report, and especially annex 6. If not please find them attached.
I have to say I was both dismayed and struck by surprise when I read the comments, but I am very curious to learn what you think.
My main feeling was that we have already addressed all points that are brought up, but again I am very curious to hear your opinion.
Finally. The biggest surprise came from the suggestion of the use of the public interest instrument, which seems to be quite far fetched to use in case of human rights. !
I can
imagine the headline: ICANN board think human rights are against the public interest.
Looking forward to hear what you all think.
All the best,
Niels
.
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________ 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
