[CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements

[Seun Ojedeji]

So it's really a non-issue to you but you only suggested wording (and way
forward) for those who find it to be an issue. Makes sense.

For the record, I am in agreement with the suggested way forward as well
but to the extent that we will not have to spend a 3digit legal hours on
it. I have heard the money is there anyway, but I don't think the money
will keep coming as much ( the lifetime of some of the names delegated in
the newgTLD is predictable) so it may be wise to spend wisely.

I think how well an organisation respect "human rights and transparency"
would be determined by the operating principles and governing documents of
the organisation.

I am a fan of "human rights/transparency" but not without indicating the
specific actions that would imply such is happening or otherwise.

Regards
On 30 Jul 2015 10:07 am, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:

>  Hi Chris,
>
>  I'll have to defer to others with more expertise on this one.  It's a
> good question that should be addressed.
>
>  Best,
> Keith
>
>  On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
>
>  Keith,
>
>  This looks interesting. Could we think of an example of something
> concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment? Or something it
> would not be able to do?
>
>
>
>  Cheers,
>
>
>  Chris
>
>  On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:16 , Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Avri,
>
> In order to tie your suggestion directly to the language in Secretary
> Strickling's April 2014 written congressional testimony (included in a
> prior email) and to reduce concerns about scope creep, would language along
> these lines be acceptable to you?
>
> "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to
> respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and
> the free flow of information."
>
>
> Speaking personally, I could probably support this formulation. To be
> clear, I have not discussed this with the RySG, but it's consistent with
> the requirements outlined by NTIA so I think it's certainly worth
> considering.
>
> I'm not advocating including this in the Bylaws, but I'm not objecting to
> it either. However, if we don't reach consensus for adding to the Bylaws, I
> definitely think this is worth further consideration in WS2 and would
> support an explicit reference using this or similar language and timetable
> for doing so.
>
> Regards,
> Keith
>
> On Jul 30, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> Within its mission, ICANN will be committed to respect fundamental
>  human rights in its operationsespecially with regard to the exercise
>  of free expression or the free flow of information.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150730/7766a379/attachment.html>