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

+1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Costa Rica: +506 7008 3964

Our travel blog: www.paulandkatyexcellentadventure.blogspot.com

My professional blog: www.paulrosenzweigesq.com

Link to my PGP Key

 

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> 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