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
+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
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 canimagine 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.