Or actually, the right question is "what is it about a commitment to transparency that threatens the functioning of the network 365/24/7?" I can't honestly see an answer to that. In other words, the burden is on the the Board not us ... Sorry ... I'm sure you don't agree Paul -- but if you believe in the bottom-up process that's the way the system should work P Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2015 3:46 PM To: wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] Board comments on Annex 6 Actually, I think it is for the WG and the Board to tell us what human rights they'd like the possibility to infringe, and why. (George Bush wasn't able to do that in 2002 when he withdrew the United States from the International Criminal Court since he couldn't foretell than an Abu Ghr'aib might happen. Oh no.) On 12/19/2015 07:11 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
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 +1 Kavouss
2015-12-19 15:28 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>:
On Dec 18, 2015 23:18, "Paul Twomey" <paul.twomey@argopacific.com <mailto:paul.twomey@argopacific.com>> wrote: > > > 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)
>
SO: +1 to that. The IAB's comment was mute (neutral) about this, don't know if the NRO-EC will be making comment on this subject as
well.
Regards > 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 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> >> >> VOIP:+1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> >> >> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 >> >> Costa Rica:+506 7008 3964 <tel:%2B506%207008%203964> >> >> 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 >> >> >>
>> From: wp4-bounces@icann.org <mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 > > > -- > Dr Paul Twomey > Managing Director > Argo P@cific > > US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 <tel:%2B1%20310%20279%202366> > Aust M: +61 416 238 501 <tel:%2B61%20416%20238%20501> > > www.argopacific.com <http://www.argopacific.com> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wp4 mailing list > Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 >
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org <mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4