I'm actually more with Paul Twomey. Here's my thinking. The UDHR is a world-wide, universally respected statement of basic human rights. Including a vague committement to 'human rights' might be later interpreted to mean ICANN was committed to something we haven't even considered. But the important thing is this: that we include the qualifier that the committment is in the context of ICANN's specified mission, and not wider. On 07/10/15 10:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Nigel,
as much as I dislike to agree with ICANN Legal on anything :-)-O, Ms Eisner may have a point here.
Not from a legal perspective, ie "as ratified" but from the corporate (including entering into (future) financial commitments "blindly").
I will go with the Consensus on this, but maybe we want to look at this some more.
el
On 2015-10-07 10:53, Nigel Roberts wrote:
On 07/10/15 01:54, Samantha Eisner wrote:
Question 1: No. ICANN does not include references to other specific documents in its governing documents, particularly external documents that can be changed without ICANN’s consent or inputs.
With respect,
(a) the UDHR is not going to change. (b) the By Law can refer to the text as ratified.