WP4 Deliverable: Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human RIghts
All: Attached are Word and PDF versions of a proposed final draft of the deliverable of WP4, which is intended to become part of the next Report of the CCWG. Niels and Tatiana and Matt went through the document after our call and edited and resolved the proposed changes in the document. I followed with further edits and formatting work. I believe that all of us sought to be neutral *rapporteurs* carrying out the sense of today's call and the work of our group. I felt that we needed a section which specifically set out the process and results of our discussions on refining the language of the Bylaw, rather than leaving this to our recommendations in the final section of the document. Therefore, I took the liberty of creating such a section, and hope that you will find that this section reflects our work. This document also remains available on Google Drive. I look forward to any comments. Best regards, Greg
Dear Greg, Thank you, Tatiana, Niels, Matthew and David for this new document. I think it's a great document that, from my perspective, appropriately reflects the work done in our WP4 and suggests concrete solutions and steps forward. Will wait for others to comment but I would say it's ok to be delivered and shared with the larger CCWG. Thanks to all in the WP. You have all made an outstanding job! Kind regards , León
El 02/11/2015, a las 7:36 p.m., Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió:
All:
Attached are Word and PDF versions of a proposed final draft of the deliverable of WP4, which is intended to become part of the next Report of the CCWG.
Niels and Tatiana and Matt went through the document after our call and edited and resolved the proposed changes in the document. I followed with further edits and formatting work. I believe that all of us sought to be neutral rapporteurs carrying out the sense of today's call and the work of our group.
I felt that we needed a section which specifically set out the process and results of our discussions on refining the language of the Bylaw, rather than leaving this to our recommendations in the final section of the document. Therefore, I took the liberty of creating such a section, and hope that you will find that this section reflects our work.
This document also remains available on Google Drive.
I look forward to any comments.
Best regards,
Greg <Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.docx> <Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.pdf> _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
I also want to thank Tatiana, Greg, Niels, Leon, and Matthew for this. I had a long-planned family event and did not see this final version until our CCWG call(1am my time) and so I probably surprised you by asking for a tweak. Sorry to take you by surprise like that. Here is the paragraph I sought a tweak on: Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. This commitment does not in any way create an obligation for ICANN, or any entity having a relationship with ICANN, to protect or enforce human rights. In particular, this does not create any obligation for ICANN to respond to or consider any complaint, request or demand seeking the enforcement of human rights by ICANN. My concern was that the phrase *or any entity having a relationship with ICANN* in the second sentence did not appear in the third before the words “to respond”. Yes, that would add to the “clunkiness” of the wording but the concern (the usual suspect) is that complainants lawyers will pick that difference apart to the great detriment of those having a relationship with ICANN. And that is why I ask for the change – and am glad our outside counsel will have a go at this in the end. Again, many thanks all. David McAuley From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:51 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] WP4 Deliverable: Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human RIghts Dear Greg, Thank you, Tatiana, Niels, Matthew and David for this new document. I think it's a great document that, from my perspective, appropriately reflects the work done in our WP4 and suggests concrete solutions and steps forward. Will wait for others to comment but I would say it's ok to be delivered and shared with the larger CCWG. Thanks to all in the WP. You have all made an outstanding job! Kind regards , León El 02/11/2015, a las 7:36 p.m., Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió: All: Attached are Word and PDF versions of a proposed final draft of the deliverable of WP4, which is intended to become part of the next Report of the CCWG. Niels and Tatiana and Matt went through the document after our call and edited and resolved the proposed changes in the document. I followed with further edits and formatting work. I believe that all of us sought to be neutral rapporteurs carrying out the sense of today's call and the work of our group. I felt that we needed a section which specifically set out the process and results of our discussions on refining the language of the Bylaw, rather than leaving this to our recommendations in the final section of the document. Therefore, I took the liberty of creating such a section, and hope that you will find that this section reflects our work. This document also remains available on Google Drive. I look forward to any comments. Best regards, Greg <Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.docx> <Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.pdf> _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org<mailto:Wp4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
I have to say that I am rather dissatisfied with this camel. I see it translates as "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. But really it won't." Thus qualifer, which will eviscerate any commitment whatsoever to basic standards of respect for human rights in a privatised ICANN, means that ICANN is not worthy of transition until a meaningful committment is produced. On 03/11/15 13:58, McAuley, David wrote:
I also want to thank Tatiana, Greg, Niels, Leon, and Matthew for this.
I had a long-planned family event and did not see this final version until our CCWG call(1am my time) and so I probably surprised you by asking for a tweak. Sorry to take you by surprise like that.
Here is the paragraph I sought a tweak on:
/Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. This commitment does not in any way create an obligation for ICANN, or any entity having a relationship with ICANN, to protect or enforce human rights. In particular, this does not create any obligation for ICANN to respond to or consider any complaint, request or demand seeking the enforcement of human rights by ICANN./
//
My concern was that the phrase */or any entity having a relationship with ICANN* / in the second sentence did not appear in the third before the words “/to respond”/.
Yes, that would add to the “clunkiness” of the wording but the concern (the usual suspect) is that complainants lawyers will pick that difference apart to the great detriment of those having a relationship with ICANN. And that is why I ask for the change – and am glad our outside counsel will have a go at this in the end.
Again, many thanks all.
David McAuley
*From:*wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 8:51 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; wp4@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Wp4] WP4 Deliverable: Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human RIghts
Dear Greg,
Thank you, Tatiana, Niels, Matthew and David for this new document. I think it's a great document that, from my perspective, appropriately reflects the work done in our WP4 and suggests concrete solutions and steps forward.
Will wait for others to comment but I would say it's ok to be delivered and shared with the larger CCWG.
Thanks to all in the WP. You have all made an outstanding job!
Kind regards ,
León
El 02/11/2015, a las 7:36 p.m., Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió:
All:
Attached are Word and PDF versions of a proposed final draft of the deliverable of WP4, which is intended to become part of the next Report of the CCWG.
Niels and Tatiana and Matt went through the document after our call and edited and resolved the proposed changes in the document. I followed with further edits and formatting work. I believe that all of us sought to be neutral /rapporteurs/ carrying out the sense of today's call and the work of our group.
I felt that we needed a section which specifically set out the process and results of our discussions on refining the language of the Bylaw, rather than leaving this to our recommendations in the final section of the document. Therefore, I took the liberty of creating such a section, and hope that you will find that this section reflects our work.
This document also remains available on Google Drive.
I look forward to any comments.
Best regards,
Greg
<Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.docx>
<Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.pdf>
_______________________________________________ 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
I have redirected this to the main list. I fully agree with Nigel's measured statement. Not acceptable. el On 2015-11-05 13:13, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I have to say that I am rather dissatisfied with this camel.
I see it translates as
"Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. But really it won't."
Thus qualifer, which will eviscerate any commitment whatsoever to basic standards of respect for human rights in a privatised ICANN, means that ICANN is not worthy of transition until a meaningful committment is produced.
On 03/11/15 13:58, McAuley, David wrote:
I also want to thank Tatiana, Greg, Niels, Leon, and Matthew for this.
I had a long-planned family event and did not see this final version until our CCWG call(1am my time) and so I probably surprised you by asking for a tweak. Sorry to take you by surprise like that.
Here is the paragraph I sought a tweak on:
/Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. This commitment does not in any way create an obligation for ICANN, or any entity having a relationship with ICANN, to protect or enforce human rights. In particular, this does not create any obligation for ICANN to respond to or consider any complaint, request or demand seeking the enforcement of human rights by ICANN./
//
My concern was that the phrase */or any entity having a relationship with ICANN* / in the second sentence did not appear in the third before the words “/to respond”/.
Yes, that would add to the “clunkiness” of the wording but the concern (the usual suspect) is that complainants lawyers will pick that difference apart to the great detriment of those having a relationship with ICANN. And that is why I ask for the change – and am glad our outside counsel will have a go at this in the end.
Again, many thanks all.
David McAuley
*From:*wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 8:51 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; wp4@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Wp4] WP4 Deliverable: Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human RIghts
Dear Greg,
Thank you, Tatiana, Niels, Matthew and David for this new document. I think it's a great document that, from my perspective, appropriately reflects the work done in our WP4 and suggests concrete solutions and steps forward.
Will wait for others to comment but I would say it's ok to be delivered and shared with the larger CCWG.
Thanks to all in the WP. You have all made an outstanding job!
Kind regards ,
León
El 02/11/2015, a las 7:36 p.m., Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió:
All:
Attached are Word and PDF versions of a proposed final draft of the deliverable of WP4, which is intended to become part of the next Report of the CCWG.
Niels and Tatiana and Matt went through the document after our call and edited and resolved the proposed changes in the document. I followed with further edits and formatting work. I believe that all of us sought to be neutral /rapporteurs/ carrying out the sense of today's call and the work of our group.
I felt that we needed a section which specifically set out the process and results of our discussions on refining the language of the Bylaw, rather than leaving this to our recommendations in the final section of the document. Therefore, I took the liberty of creating such a section, and hope that you will find that this section reflects our work.
This document also remains available on Google Drive.
I look forward to any comments.
Best regards,
Greg
<Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.docx>
<Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.pdf> [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Nigel, Can you explain your issue? I can't discern it from your statement. If it's with the "protect or enforce" language, it's my understanding that those roles are played by governments, while the descriptor for the role of private entities is "respect." I think our document makes that clear, but if it could be clearer, your suggestions are appreciated. Thanks! Greg On Thursday, November 5, 2015, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I have to say that I am rather dissatisfied with this camel.
I see it translates as
"Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. But really it won't."
Thus qualifer, which will eviscerate any commitment whatsoever to basic standards of respect for human rights in a privatised ICANN, means that ICANN is not worthy of transition until a meaningful committment is produced.
On 03/11/15 13:58, McAuley, David wrote:
I also want to thank Tatiana, Greg, Niels, Leon, and Matthew for this.
I had a long-planned family event and did not see this final version until our CCWG call(1am my time) and so I probably surprised you by asking for a tweak. Sorry to take you by surprise like that.
Here is the paragraph I sought a tweak on:
/Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. This commitment does not in any way create an obligation for ICANN, or any entity having a relationship with ICANN, to protect or enforce human rights. In particular, this does not create any obligation for ICANN to respond to or consider any complaint, request or demand seeking the enforcement of human rights by ICANN./
//
My concern was that the phrase */or any entity having a relationship with ICANN* / in the second sentence did not appear in the third before the words “/to respond”/.
Yes, that would add to the “clunkiness” of the wording but the concern (the usual suspect) is that complainants lawyers will pick that difference apart to the great detriment of those having a relationship with ICANN. And that is why I ask for the change – and am glad our outside counsel will have a go at this in the end.
Again, many thanks all.
David McAuley
*From:*wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 8:51 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; wp4@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Wp4] WP4 Deliverable: Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human RIghts
Dear Greg,
Thank you, Tatiana, Niels, Matthew and David for this new document. I think it's a great document that, from my perspective, appropriately reflects the work done in our WP4 and suggests concrete solutions and steps forward.
Will wait for others to comment but I would say it's ok to be delivered and shared with the larger CCWG.
Thanks to all in the WP. You have all made an outstanding job!
Kind regards ,
León
El 02/11/2015, a las 7:36 p.m., Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió:
All:
Attached are Word and PDF versions of a proposed final draft of the deliverable of WP4, which is intended to become part of the next Report of the CCWG.
Niels and Tatiana and Matt went through the document after our call and edited and resolved the proposed changes in the document. I followed with further edits and formatting work. I believe that all of us sought to be neutral /rapporteurs/ carrying out the sense of today's call and the work of our group.
I felt that we needed a section which specifically set out the process and results of our discussions on refining the language of the Bylaw, rather than leaving this to our recommendations in the final section of the document. Therefore, I took the liberty of creating such a section, and hope that you will find that this section reflects our work.
This document also remains available on Google Drive.
I look forward to any comments.
Best regards,
Greg
<Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.docx>
<Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.pdf>
_______________________________________________ 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
The description for the role of private entities is "not at all, unless committed to by the private entity". So there's a major misunderstanding, as there is in the role played by ICANN as regards ccTLDs. Here's a better formulation (from a US private corporation, no less) "ExxonMobil actively promotes respect for human rights and is committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations. " On 05/11/15 13:44, Greg Shatan wrote:
Nigel,
Can you explain your issue? I can't discern it from your statement.
If it's with the "protect or enforce" language, it's my understanding that those roles are played by governments, while the descriptor for the role of private entities is "respect." I think our document makes that clear, but if it could be clearer, your suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks!
Greg
On Thursday, November 5, 2015, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
I have to say that I am rather dissatisfied with this camel.
I see it translates as
"Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. But really it won't."
Thus qualifer, which will eviscerate any commitment whatsoever to basic standards of respect for human rights in a privatised ICANN, means that ICANN is not worthy of transition until a meaningful committment is produced.
On 03/11/15 13:58, McAuley, David wrote:
I also want to thank Tatiana, Greg, Niels, Leon, and Matthew for this.
I had a long-planned family event and did not see this final version until our CCWG call(1am my time) and so I probably surprised you by asking for a tweak. Sorry to take you by surprise like that.
Here is the paragraph I sought a tweak on:
/Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. This commitment does not in any way create an obligation for ICANN, or any entity having a relationship with ICANN, to protect or enforce human rights. In particular, this does not create any obligation for ICANN to respond to or consider any complaint, request or demand seeking the enforcement of human rights by ICANN./
//
My concern was that the phrase */or any entity having a relationship with ICANN* / in the second sentence did not appear in the third before the words “/to respond”/.
Yes, that would add to the “clunkiness” of the wording but the concern (the usual suspect) is that complainants lawyers will pick that difference apart to the great detriment of those having a relationship with ICANN. And that is why I ask for the change – and am glad our outside counsel will have a go at this in the end.
Again, many thanks all.
David McAuley
*From:*wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 8:51 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; wp4@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Wp4] WP4 Deliverable: Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human RIghts
Dear Greg,
Thank you, Tatiana, Niels, Matthew and David for this new document. I think it's a great document that, from my perspective, appropriately reflects the work done in our WP4 and suggests concrete solutions and steps forward.
Will wait for others to comment but I would say it's ok to be delivered and shared with the larger CCWG.
Thanks to all in the WP. You have all made an outstanding job!
Kind regards ,
León
El 02/11/2015, a las 7:36 p.m., Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió:
All:
Attached are Word and PDF versions of a proposed final draft of the deliverable of WP4, which is intended to become part of the next Report of the CCWG.
Niels and Tatiana and Matt went through the document after our call and edited and resolved the proposed changes in the document. I followed with further edits and formatting work. I believe that all of us sought to be neutral /rapporteurs/ carrying out the sense of today's call and the work of our group.
I felt that we needed a section which specifically set out the process and results of our discussions on refining the language of the Bylaw, rather than leaving this to our recommendations in the final section of the document. Therefore, I took the liberty of creating such a section, and hope that you will find that this section reflects our work.
This document also remains available on Google Drive.
I look forward to any comments.
Best regards,
Greg
<Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.docx>
<Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.pdf>
_______________________________________________ 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
Our very first sentence says that ICANN will respect Human RIghts. Still not seeing the issue. On Thursday, November 5, 2015, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
The description for the role of private entities is "not at all, unless committed to by the private entity". So there's a major misunderstanding, as there is in the role played by ICANN as regards ccTLDs.
Here's a better formulation (from a US private corporation, no less)
"ExxonMobil actively promotes respect for human rights and is committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations. "
On 05/11/15 13:44, Greg Shatan wrote:
Nigel,
Can you explain your issue? I can't discern it from your statement.
If it's with the "protect or enforce" language, it's my understanding that those roles are played by governments, while the descriptor for the role of private entities is "respect." I think our document makes that clear, but if it could be clearer, your suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks!
Greg
On Thursday, November 5, 2015, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
I have to say that I am rather dissatisfied with this camel.
I see it translates as
"Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. But really it won't."
Thus qualifer, which will eviscerate any commitment whatsoever to basic standards of respect for human rights in a privatised ICANN, means that ICANN is not worthy of transition until a meaningful committment is produced.
On 03/11/15 13:58, McAuley, David wrote:
I also want to thank Tatiana, Greg, Niels, Leon, and Matthew for this.
I had a long-planned family event and did not see this final version until our CCWG call(1am my time) and so I probably surprised you by asking for a tweak. Sorry to take you by surprise like that.
Here is the paragraph I sought a tweak on:
/Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. This commitment does not in any way create an obligation for ICANN, or any entity having a relationship with ICANN, to protect or enforce human rights. In particular, this does not create any obligation for ICANN to respond to or consider any complaint, request or demand seeking the enforcement of human rights by ICANN./
//
My concern was that the phrase */or any entity having a relationship with ICANN* / in the second sentence did not appear in the third before the words “/to respond”/.
Yes, that would add to the “clunkiness” of the wording but the concern (the usual suspect) is that complainants lawyers will pick that difference apart to the great detriment of those having a relationship with ICANN. And that is why I ask for the change – and am glad our outside counsel will have a go at this in the end.
Again, many thanks all.
David McAuley
*From:*wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 8:51 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; wp4@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Wp4] WP4 Deliverable: Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human RIghts
Dear Greg,
Thank you, Tatiana, Niels, Matthew and David for this new document. I think it's a great document that, from my perspective, appropriately reflects the work done in our WP4 and suggests concrete solutions and steps forward.
Will wait for others to comment but I would say it's ok to be delivered and shared with the larger CCWG.
Thanks to all in the WP. You have all made an outstanding job!
Kind regards ,
León
El 02/11/2015, a las 7:36 p.m., Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió:
All:
Attached are Word and PDF versions of a proposed final draft of the deliverable of WP4, which is intended to become part of the next Report of the CCWG.
Niels and Tatiana and Matt went through the document after our call and edited and resolved the proposed changes in the document. I followed with further edits and formatting work. I believe that all of us sought to be neutral /rapporteurs/ carrying out the sense of today's call and the work of our group.
I felt that we needed a section which specifically set out the process and results of our discussions on refining the language of the Bylaw, rather than leaving this to our recommendations in the final section of the document. Therefore, I took the liberty of creating such a section, and hope that you will find that this section reflects our work.
This document also remains available on Google Drive.
I look forward to any comments.
Best regards,
Greg
<Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.docx>
<Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.pdf>
_______________________________________________ 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
I'm fine with the first sentence. It's the subsequent qualifiers that could easily be interpreted to mean ICANN can ignore it in practice that seem problematic to me. But no doubt others are better at expressing this than I. On 05/11/15 14:15, Greg Shatan wrote:
Our very first sentence says that ICANN will respect Human RIghts. Still not seeing the issue.
On Thursday, November 5, 2015, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
The description for the role of private entities is "not at all, unless committed to by the private entity". So there's a major misunderstanding, as there is in the role played by ICANN as regards ccTLDs.
Here's a better formulation (from a US private corporation, no less)
"ExxonMobil actively promotes respect for human rights and is committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations. "
On 05/11/15 13:44, Greg Shatan wrote:
Nigel,
Can you explain your issue? I can't discern it from your statement.
If it's with the "protect or enforce" language, it's my understanding that those roles are played by governments, while the descriptor for the role of private entities is "respect." I think our document makes that clear, but if it could be clearer, your suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks!
Greg
On Thursday, November 5, 2015, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
I have to say that I am rather dissatisfied with this camel.
I see it translates as
"Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. But really it won't."
Thus qualifer, which will eviscerate any commitment whatsoever to basic standards of respect for human rights in a privatised ICANN, means that ICANN is not worthy of transition until a meaningful committment is produced.
On 03/11/15 13:58, McAuley, David wrote:
I also want to thank Tatiana, Greg, Niels, Leon, and Matthew for this.
I had a long-planned family event and did not see this final version until our CCWG call(1am my time) and so I probably surprised you by asking for a tweak. Sorry to take you by surprise like that.
Here is the paragraph I sought a tweak on:
/Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. This commitment does not in any way create an obligation for ICANN, or any entity having a relationship with ICANN, to protect or enforce human rights. In particular, this does not create any obligation for ICANN to respond to or consider any complaint, request or demand seeking the enforcement of human rights by ICANN./
//
My concern was that the phrase */or any entity having a relationship with ICANN* / in the second sentence did not appear in the third before the words “/to respond”/.
Yes, that would add to the “clunkiness” of the wording but the concern (the usual suspect) is that complainants lawyers will pick that difference apart to the great detriment of those having a relationship with ICANN. And that is why I ask for the change – and am glad our outside counsel will have a go at this in the end.
Again, many thanks all.
David McAuley
*From:*wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 8:51 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; wp4@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Wp4] WP4 Deliverable: Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human RIghts
Dear Greg,
Thank you, Tatiana, Niels, Matthew and David for this new document. I think it's a great document that, from my perspective, appropriately reflects the work done in our WP4 and suggests concrete solutions and steps forward.
Will wait for others to comment but I would say it's ok to be delivered and shared with the larger CCWG.
Thanks to all in the WP. You have all made an outstanding job!
Kind regards ,
León
El 02/11/2015, a las 7:36 p.m., Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió:
All:
Attached are Word and PDF versions of a proposed final draft of the deliverable of WP4, which is intended to become part of the next Report of the CCWG.
Niels and Tatiana and Matt went through the document after our call and edited and resolved the proposed changes in the document. I followed with further edits and formatting work. I believe that all of us sought to be neutral /rapporteurs/ carrying out the sense of today's call and the work of our group.
I felt that we needed a section which specifically set out the process and results of our discussions on refining the language of the Bylaw, rather than leaving this to our recommendations in the final section of the document. Therefore, I took the liberty of creating such a section, and hope that you will find that this section reflects our work.
This document also remains available on Google Drive.
I look forward to any comments.
Best regards,
Greg
<Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.docx>
<Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.pdf>
_______________________________________________ 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
Here's an example. ICANN takes away the management of a ccTLD from a ccTLD manager in a third world country based on false representations from a third party. The responsible person at the manager has little English and is in any event under the pressure of threatened harm to himself or his staff if he objects. ICANN locates a 12 month old copy of the registry database and passes it to the new manager who starts operations out of North America, selling the domains for profit to California startups. (NB: This is a portmanteau stitched together from various situations, so is entirely hypothetical for our purposes). ICANN has on the face of things, infringed at least on two fundamental rights here - intellectual property, and the right to a fair hearing. Your proposed wording could easily be used to eliminate any consequences from this. On 05/11/15 14:26, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm fine with the first sentence.
It's the subsequent qualifiers that could easily be interpreted to mean ICANN can ignore it in practice that seem problematic to me.
But no doubt others are better at expressing this than I.
On 05/11/15 14:15, Greg Shatan wrote:
Our very first sentence says that ICANN will respect Human RIghts. Still not seeing the issue.
On Thursday, November 5, 2015, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
The description for the role of private entities is "not at all, unless committed to by the private entity". So there's a major misunderstanding, as there is in the role played by ICANN as regards ccTLDs.
Here's a better formulation (from a US private corporation, no less)
"ExxonMobil actively promotes respect for human rights and is committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations. "
On 05/11/15 13:44, Greg Shatan wrote:
Nigel,
Can you explain your issue? I can't discern it from your statement.
If it's with the "protect or enforce" language, it's my understanding that those roles are played by governments, while the descriptor for the role of private entities is "respect." I think our document makes that clear, but if it could be clearer, your suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks!
Greg
On Thursday, November 5, 2015, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
I have to say that I am rather dissatisfied with this camel.
I see it translates as
"Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. But really it won't."
Thus qualifer, which will eviscerate any commitment whatsoever to basic standards of respect for human rights in a privatised ICANN, means that ICANN is not worthy of transition until a meaningful committment is produced.
On 03/11/15 13:58, McAuley, David wrote:
I also want to thank Tatiana, Greg, Niels, Leon, and Matthew for this.
I had a long-planned family event and did not see this final version until our CCWG call(1am my time) and so I probably surprised you by asking for a tweak. Sorry to take you by surprise like that.
Here is the paragraph I sought a tweak on:
/Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. This commitment does not in any way create an obligation for ICANN, or any entity having a relationship with ICANN, to protect or enforce human rights. In particular, this does not create any obligation for ICANN to respond to or consider any complaint, request or demand seeking the enforcement of human rights by ICANN./
//
My concern was that the phrase */or any entity having a relationship with ICANN* / in the second sentence did not appear in the third before the words “/to respond”/.
Yes, that would add to the “clunkiness” of the wording but the concern (the usual suspect) is that complainants lawyers will pick that difference apart to the great detriment of those having a relationship with ICANN. And that is why I ask for the change – and am glad our outside counsel will have a go at this in the end.
Again, many thanks all.
David McAuley
*From:*wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 8:51 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; wp4@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Wp4] WP4 Deliverable: Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human RIghts
Dear Greg,
Thank you, Tatiana, Niels, Matthew and David for this new document. I think it's a great document that, from my perspective, appropriately reflects the work done in our WP4 and suggests concrete solutions and steps forward.
Will wait for others to comment but I would say it's ok to be delivered and shared with the larger CCWG.
Thanks to all in the WP. You have all made an outstanding job!
Kind regards ,
León
El 02/11/2015, a las 7:36 p.m., Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió:
All:
Attached are Word and PDF versions of a proposed final draft of the deliverable of WP4, which is intended to become part of the next Report of the CCWG.
Niels and Tatiana and Matt went through the document after our call and edited and resolved the proposed changes in the document. I followed with further edits and formatting work. I believe that all of us sought to be neutral /rapporteurs/ carrying out the sense of today's call and the work of our group.
I felt that we needed a section which specifically set out the process and results of our discussions on refining the language of the Bylaw, rather than leaving this to our recommendations in the final section of the document. Therefore, I took the liberty of creating such a section, and hope that you will find that this section reflects our work.
This document also remains available on Google Drive.
I look forward to any comments.
Best regards,
Greg
<Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.docx>
<Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human Rights.pdf>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
My view on this is: Either someone respects human rights or one doesn't. But to say one respects them and then say "but when we don't, go talk to Isaac"[1], is not right. greetings, el [1] A variation of the reference to Arkell v Presdramm (1971, unreported) pertaining to the Manager of a particular ccTLD. On 2015-11-05 16:26, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm fine with the first sentence.
It's the subsequent qualifiers that could easily be interpreted to mean ICANN can ignore it in practice that seem problematic to me.
But no doubt others are better at expressing this than I.
On 05/11/15 14:15, Greg Shatan wrote:
Our very first sentence says that ICANN will respect Human RIghts. Still not seeing the issue.
[..]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear all, I think the text now clearly sets out the difference between respect and protect, which is both reflected in the analysis and in the bylaw text. The framework for interpretation and implementation (there are many different ways to do this, it is not black or white) is to be developed after WS1 (as is also extensively elaborated in the document). So I am also a bit unclear about the critique of the proposed text. If you have corrections which can make to text clearer or improve it, for which we can find consensus, I am sure everyone would appreciate it a lot. Best, Niels On 11/05/2015 03:43 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
My view on this is:
Either someone respects human rights or one doesn't.
But to say one respects them and then say "but when we don't, go talk to Isaac"[1], is not right.
greetings, el
[1] A variation of the reference to Arkell v Presdramm (1971, unreported) pertaining to the Manager of a particular ccTLD.
On 2015-11-05 16:26, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm fine with the first sentence.
It's the subsequent qualifiers that could easily be interpreted to mean ICANN can ignore it in practice that seem problematic to me.
But no doubt others are better at expressing this than I.
On 05/11/15 14:15, Greg Shatan wrote:
Our very first sentence says that ICANN will respect Human RIghts. Still not seeing the issue.
[..] _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
- -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWPEExAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpr/0IAKdK3ZR6m7/XYquBGiFre7Ks 41a3vnENJHC217sNPARCMxukBErpkPQPuUz5I8DaJX1EH0XHdcW++dgqgsJ5y2Gk AcO0wcvZkoWnLzZLsgIhAg07y2Z1wjbY1WywOtZNONXgTWjIi4M0/kWWYn3ckN41 Eeqj5HLLJT5bthgm7RJJv/Q/ZlNGbViwz8QofnJXUtOe9aLBg0L0oXeS8B9HTiJA yfJJDBXfZ7tU5PhJ925mJ8wNaFt1F0GprY//DWhDBAAg0W8wCshJDUk4DUWu7HHd PDQ6H1r52zuiTzCpetW5nmt5rsUAH91fnAVP8t0AkVJYlHF+SQ/nL167GqnEInM= =GfJt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 We have been through this before. ICANN must respect human rights. Period. No watering down. No deferring for ever and a day (until the cows come down, ad kalendas Graecas, or for the eco members: Sankt Nimmerleinstag). This is a show stopper for me. el On 2015-11-06 07:57, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear all,
I think the text now clearly sets out the difference between respect and protect, which is both reflected in the analysis and in the bylaw text.
The framework for interpretation and implementation (there are many different ways to do this, it is not black or white) is to be developed after WS1 (as is also extensively elaborated in the document).
So I am also a bit unclear about the critique of the proposed text.
If you have corrections which can make to text clearer or improve it, for which we can find consensus, I am sure everyone would appreciate it a lot.
Best,
Niels
On 11/05/2015 03:43 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
My view on this is:
Either someone respects human rights or one doesn't.
But to say one respects them and then say "but when we don't, go talk to Isaac"[1], is not right.
greetings, el
[1] A variation of the reference to Arkell v Presdramm (1971, unreported) pertaining to the Manager of a particular ccTLD.
On 2015-11-05 16:26, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm fine with the first sentence.
It's the subsequent qualifiers that could easily be interpreted to mean ICANN can ignore it in practice that seem problematic to me.
But no doubt others are better at expressing this than I.
On 05/11/15 14:15, Greg Shatan wrote:
Our very first sentence says that ICANN will respect Human RIghts. Still not seeing the issue.
[..] _______________________________________________ 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
- -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIVAwUBVjxwzJcFHaN5RT+rAQJRKhAAhGbbarozWl5fgVfKaZPhmVgoJlzPk0Lw RCVeLZS/srbJa/yVeMzkqiVBqyCt3KBHPHIYH7AEqJPfNSpStYtRtAhZRjuDaak1 QYNK5nK+j+4KzjtxVUajGjKT9WxXcO6cs8dH9Wy1rP1oEvRudJ+YLtz9HYbLKtRN 8nBvSceqBVpcsH6w1O2o5s1Ty7Q6+L0g+QpQthT5+cAiJxRvtxtZj+kWdncubU4R olySPJyLx8EPw/XV64/4xPxtBR9iMRusouGyHoqVsWCNhiFh4MwyThF9na23PUUS vDtrQzVpOb/ZfOiFEID0AH5TpiLqSwQCAnabtPR35OWjaQih1sCC93/i0j4l/Q8a NzkNjV2r1mx6CThr+ROZJRO0Fmosn+gvIN0/lG6hAHCOAXwsYPXMziogvXI8xitW IMtIaXehBZPx86DX20z4sVrse0Z8+FiJ+u08QxjzFvBSII3T20sjsokCnyij9ah4 apu8UBqYRZfmXKxV+9DZ1Vu9U8qO/stuUrwTMbvQbgkTVsvPN2jrny9EZvXy+TFj QJEFcFz7XjbHXE8bxxdD+nzZVmcToW6n8iD3gSeW4o2BW/akmy93YPeGXizSM5SC pyquGG+WfU3uimXqky+aO874Kbc8zVp4U6wZoMPVtY7DztvbaFMNYN+Gh7HwUcOL EbJOh3cGyTk= =scqS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dear Eberhard, That's exactly what the text says. Am not sure what is a showstopper for you. Best, Niels On 6 November 2015 07:20:12 GMT-02:00, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
We have been through this before.
ICANN must respect human rights.
Period.
No watering down.
No deferring for ever and a day (until the cows come down, ad kalendas Graecas, or for the eco members: Sankt Nimmerleinstag).
This is a show stopper for me.
el
On 2015-11-06 07:57, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear all,
I think the text now clearly sets out the difference between respect and protect, which is both reflected in the analysis and in the bylaw text.
The framework for interpretation and implementation (there are many different ways to do this, it is not black or white) is to be developed after WS1 (as is also extensively elaborated in the document).
So I am also a bit unclear about the critique of the proposed text.
If you have corrections which can make to text clearer or improve it, for which we can find consensus, I am sure everyone would appreciate it a lot.
Best,
Niels
On 11/05/2015 03:43 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
My view on this is:
Either someone respects human rights or one doesn't.
But to say one respects them and then say "but when we don't, go talk to Isaac"[1], is not right.
greetings, el
[1] A variation of the reference to Arkell v Presdramm (1971, unreported) pertaining to the Manager of a particular ccTLD.
On 2015-11-05 16:26, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm fine with the first sentence.
It's the subsequent qualifiers that could easily be interpreted to mean ICANN can ignore it in practice that seem problematic to me.
But no doubt others are better at expressing this than I.
On 05/11/15 14:15, Greg Shatan wrote:
Our very first sentence says that ICANN will respect Human RIghts. Still not seeing the issue.
[..] _______________________________________________ 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
- -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQIVAwUBVjxwzJcFHaN5RT+rAQJRKhAAhGbbarozWl5fgVfKaZPhmVgoJlzPk0Lw RCVeLZS/srbJa/yVeMzkqiVBqyCt3KBHPHIYH7AEqJPfNSpStYtRtAhZRjuDaak1 QYNK5nK+j+4KzjtxVUajGjKT9WxXcO6cs8dH9Wy1rP1oEvRudJ+YLtz9HYbLKtRN 8nBvSceqBVpcsH6w1O2o5s1Ty7Q6+L0g+QpQthT5+cAiJxRvtxtZj+kWdncubU4R olySPJyLx8EPw/XV64/4xPxtBR9iMRusouGyHoqVsWCNhiFh4MwyThF9na23PUUS vDtrQzVpOb/ZfOiFEID0AH5TpiLqSwQCAnabtPR35OWjaQih1sCC93/i0j4l/Q8a NzkNjV2r1mx6CThr+ROZJRO0Fmosn+gvIN0/lG6hAHCOAXwsYPXMziogvXI8xitW IMtIaXehBZPx86DX20z4sVrse0Z8+FiJ+u08QxjzFvBSII3T20sjsokCnyij9ah4 apu8UBqYRZfmXKxV+9DZ1Vu9U8qO/stuUrwTMbvQbgkTVsvPN2jrny9EZvXy+TFj QJEFcFz7XjbHXE8bxxdD+nzZVmcToW6n8iD3gSeW4o2BW/akmy93YPeGXizSM5SC pyquGG+WfU3uimXqky+aO874Kbc8zVp4U6wZoMPVtY7DztvbaFMNYN+Gh7HwUcOL EbJOh3cGyTk= =scqS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Hi, Well that is what the first line says. The second two paragraphs are the wiggle words people have insisted on as a price for allowing the first sentence in.
/W//i//t//hin itsmission and initsoperations, ICANNwill respectinternationallyrecognized humanrights./
I would be happier with just that sentence, but if the wiggle words of the second two paragraphs are the necessary price we have to pay to get the one important sentence in, i can live with them. avri On 06-Nov-15 20:26, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear Eberhard, > > That's exactly what the text says. Am not sure what is a showstopper for you. > > Best, > > Niels > > > On 6 November 2015 07:20:12 GMT-02:00, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote: > We have been through this before.
ICANN must respect human rights.
Period.
No watering down.
No deferring for ever and a day (until the cows come down, ad kalendas Graecas, or for the eco members: Sankt Nimmerleinstag).
This is a show stopper for me.
el
On 2015-11-06 07:57, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear all,
I think the text now clearly sets out the difference between respect and protect, which is both reflected in the analysis and in the bylaw text.
The framework for interpretation and implementation (there are many different ways to do this, it is not black or white) is to be developed after WS1 (as is also extensively elaborated in the!
document).
So I am also a bit unclear about the critique of the proposed text.
If you have corrections which can make to text clearer or improve it, for which we can find consensus, I am sure everyone would appreciate it a lot.
Best,
Niels
On 11/05/2015 03:43 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
My view on this is:
Either someone respects human rights or one doesn't.
But to say one respects them and then say "but when we don't, go talk to Isaac"[1], is not right.
!
greetings, el
[1] A variation of the reference to Arkell v Presdramm (1971, unreported) pertaining to the Manager of a particular ccTLD.
On 2015-11-05 16:26, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm fine with the first sentence.
It's the subsequent qualifiers that could easily be interpreted to mean ICANN can ignore it in practice that seem problematic to me.
But no doubt others are better at expressing this than I.
On 05/11/15 14:15, Greg Shatan wrote:
Our very first sentence says that ICANN will respect Human RIghts. Still not seeing the issue.
[..] ------------------------- 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
------------------------- > > Wp4 mailing list > Wp4@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4 > > > -- > 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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 On 7 November 2015 07:26:23 GMT+08:00, Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
That's exactly what the text says. Am not sure what is a showstopper for you.
Best,
Niels
On 6 November 2015 07:20:12 GMT-02:00, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
We have been through this before.
ICANN must respect human rights.
Period.
No watering down.
No deferring for ever and a day (until the cows come down, ad kalendas Graecas, or for the eco members: Sankt Nimmerleinstag).
This is a show stopper for me.
el
On 2015-11-06 07:57, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear all,
I think the text now clearly sets out the difference between respect and protect, which is both reflected in the analysis and in the bylaw text.
The framework for interpretation and implementation (there are many different ways to do this, it is not black or white) is to be developed after WS1 (as is also extensively elaborated in the document).
So I am also a bit unclear about the critique of the proposed text.
If you have corrections which can make to text clearer or improve it, for which we can find consensus, I am sure everyone would appreciate it a lot.
Best,
Niels
On 11/05/2015 03:43 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
My view on this is:
Either someone respects human rights or one doesn't.
But to say one respects them and then say "but when we don't, go talk to Isaac"[1], is not right.
greetings, el
[1] A variation of the reference to Arkell v Presdramm (1971, unreported) pertaining to the Manager of a particular ccTLD.
On 2015-11-05 16:26, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm fine with the first sentence.
It's the subsequent qualifiers that could easily be interpreted to mean ICANN can ignore it in practice that seem problematic to me.
But no doubt others are better at expressing this than I.
On 05/11/15 14:15, Greg Shatan wrote:
Our very first sentence says that ICANN will respect Human RIghts. Still not seeing the issue.
[..] _______________________________________________ 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
- -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQIVAwUBVjxwzJcFHaN5RT+rAQJRKhAAhGbbarozWl5fgVfKaZPhmVgoJlzPk0Lw RCVeLZS/srbJa/yVeMzkqiVBqyCt3KBHPHIYH7AEqJPfNSpStYtRtAhZRjuDaak1 QYNK5nK+j+4KzjtxVUajGjKT9WxXcO6cs8dH9Wy1rP1oEvRudJ+YLtz9HYbLKtRN 8nBvSceqBVpcsH6w1O2o5s1Ty7Q6+L0g+QpQthT5+cAiJxRvtxtZj+kWdncubU4R olySPJyLx8EPw/XV64/4xPxtBR9iMRusouGyHoqVsWCNhiFh4MwyThF9na23PUUS vDtrQzVpOb/ZfOiFEID0AH5TpiLqSwQCAnabtPR35OWjaQih1sCC93/i0j4l/Q8a NzkNjV2r1mx6CThr+ROZJRO0Fmosn+gvIN0/lG6hAHCOAXwsYPXMziogvXI8xitW IMtIaXehBZPx86DX20z4sVrse0Z8+FiJ+u08QxjzFvBSII3T20sjsokCnyij9ah4 apu8UBqYRZfmXKxV+9DZ1Vu9U8qO/stuUrwTMbvQbgkTVsvPN2jrny9EZvXy+TFj QJEFcFz7XjbHXE8bxxdD+nzZVmcToW6n8iD3gSeW4o2BW/akmy93YPeGXizSM5SC pyquGG+WfU3uimXqky+aO874Kbc8zVp4U6wZoMPVtY7DztvbaFMNYN+Gh7HwUcOL EbJOh3cGyTk= =scqS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
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.
Hi Niels, I agree with you. I do not understand how the current language expands ICANN's obligations, especially when the text quite literally states the opposite. The global public interest bit is also surprising in this context. From what I understand, the term is largely undefined, and as per the 3rd draft proposal, the Board must consider the community's interpretation of 'global public interest', which has not been developed yet. Unfortunately, this is an area of particular concern to the Board, as Bruce just stated ( https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-December/...) and we don't know how CCWG will respond to these comments- whether they truly will be treated like the other public comments or given special treatment. Best, Aarti Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 965-464-6846 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> | On 18 December 2015 at 16:04, Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org> wrote:
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
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.
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
On Dec 18, 2015 23:18, "Paul Twomey" <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
+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
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
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>:
On Dec 18, 2015 23:18, "Paul Twomey" <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
+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
_______________________________________________ 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
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
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
I agree with all those who are surprised and dismayed by the Board's action. As Human Rights are the core foundation of Global Public Interest, it is difficult to imagine them being inconsistent the Global Public Internet. On the contrary, any deviation between Human Rights and our understand of GPI means we have a messed up understanding of GPI and need to do some work. I also agree with those who say we need to discuss with the Board and that we need to understand their concerns so we explain, again, why these concerns are unfounded. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hi, I can accept this Thanks for the effort. avri On 03-Nov-15 10:36, Greg Shatan wrote:
All:
Attached are Word and PDF versions of a proposed final draft of the deliverable of WP4, which is intended to become part of the next Report of the CCWG.
Niels and Tatiana and Matt went through the document after our call and edited and resolved the proposed changes in the document. I followed with further edits and formatting work. I believe that all of us sought to be neutral /rapporteurs/ carrying out the sense of today's call and the work of our group.
I felt that we needed a section which specifically set out the process and results of our discussions on refining the language of the Bylaw, rather than leaving this to our recommendations in the final section of the document. Therefore, I took the liberty of creating such a section, and hope that you will find that this section reflects our work.
This document also remains available on Google Drive.
I look forward to any comments.
Best regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Greg, Niels, Tatiana, and Matthew, I know this was a quick turn around, but you did an excellent job! I will note that the section on mentioning specific human rights is questionable. "One cannot selectively mention, emphasize or apply human rights because they are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated"? I know the UN says this, but reality says otherwise. My quibble aside, well done. Best, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> ________________________________ From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [wp4-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:36 PM To: wp4@icann.org; acct-staff@icann.org Subject: [Wp4] WP4 Deliverable: Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human RIghts All: Attached are Word and PDF versions of a proposed final draft of the deliverable of WP4, which is intended to become part of the next Report of the CCWG. Niels and Tatiana and Matt went through the document after our call and edited and resolved the proposed changes in the document. I followed with further edits and formatting work. I believe that all of us sought to be neutral rapporteurs carrying out the sense of today's call and the work of our group. I felt that we needed a section which specifically set out the process and results of our discussions on refining the language of the Bylaw, rather than leaving this to our recommendations in the final section of the document. Therefore, I took the liberty of creating such a section, and hope that you will find that this section reflects our work. This document also remains available on Google Drive. I look forward to any comments. Best regards, Greg
Greg, Niels, Tatiana and Matt Well done on a good document. Paul On 11/3/15 12:36 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All:
Attached are Word and PDF versions of a proposed final draft of the deliverable of WP4, which is intended to become part of the next Report of the CCWG.
Niels and Tatiana and Matt went through the document after our call and edited and resolved the proposed changes in the document. I followed with further edits and formatting work. I believe that all of us sought to be neutral /rapporteurs/ carrying out the sense of today's call and the work of our group.
I felt that we needed a section which specifically set out the process and results of our discussions on refining the language of the Bylaw, rather than leaving this to our recommendations in the final section of the document. Therefore, I took the liberty of creating such a section, and hope that you will find that this section reflects our work.
This document also remains available on Google Drive.
I look forward to any comments.
Best regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
Leon, Do you want to send this deliverable to the CCWG so that there will be some time for review, or shall I? Greg On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com> wrote:
Greg, Niels, Tatiana and Matt
Well done on a good document.
Paul
On 11/3/15 12:36 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All:
Attached are Word and PDF versions of a proposed final draft of the deliverable of WP4, which is intended to become part of the next Report of the CCWG.
Niels and Tatiana and Matt went through the document after our call and edited and resolved the proposed changes in the document. I followed with further edits and formatting work. I believe that all of us sought to be neutral *rapporteurs* carrying out the sense of today's call and the work of our group.
I felt that we needed a section which specifically set out the process and results of our discussions on refining the language of the Bylaw, rather than leaving this to our recommendations in the final section of the document. Therefore, I took the liberty of creating such a section, and hope that you will find that this section reflects our work.
This document also remains available on Google Drive.
I look forward to any comments.
Best regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing listWp4@icann.orghttps://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
_______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
If there are no more comments, please feel free to forward it to the general list. Saludos, León
El 02/11/2015, a las 9:41 p.m., Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió:
Leon,
Do you want to send this deliverable to the CCWG so that there will be some time for review, or shall I?
Greg
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Paul Twomey <paul.twomey@argopacific.com> wrote: Greg, Niels, Tatiana and Matt
Well done on a good document.
Paul
On 11/3/15 12:36 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: All:
Attached are Word and PDF versions of a proposed final draft of the deliverable of WP4, which is intended to become part of the next Report of the CCWG.
Niels and Tatiana and Matt went through the document after our call and edited and resolved the proposed changes in the document. I followed with further edits and formatting work. I believe that all of us sought to be neutral rapporteurs carrying out the sense of today's call and the work of our group.
I felt that we needed a section which specifically set out the process and results of our discussions on refining the language of the Bylaw, rather than leaving this to our recommendations in the final section of the document. Therefore, I took the liberty of creating such a section, and hope that you will find that this section reflects our work.
This document also remains available on Google Drive.
I look forward to any comments.
Best regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (14)
-
Aarti Bhavana -
Avri Doria -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
McAuley, David -
Niels ten Oever -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Paul Twomey -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji