Dr Eberhard W Lisse
el at lisse.na
Sat Jan 2 11:58:42 UTC 2016
Did we ask the Board what they consider GOI?
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> On 2 Jan 2016, at 13:35, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
> The more we read and investigate ,the more we find almost impossible to have an agreed definition of GPI from various aspects .
> There is only one refernce in Article 3 of Article of Incorporation to what GPI could cove and those are outlined in sub-section i through iv of that Article.
> Those sub-section could form some sort of GPI SESCRIPTION and /or scope of application and NOTGPI definition . Those sub-sections are narrow refernce to specific area of GPI in ICANN activities.
> In the light of the foregoing, rejection of any Recommendation or part of the Recommendation contained in CCWG 3rd Proposal SHALL BE CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY ASSOCIATED with any of those sub-section with valid argument and legal analysis. Consequently by simple statement that " such REC. OR PART OF THE rec. is inconsistent with GPI is not convincing at all.
> 2016-01-02 12:10 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>:
>> Such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights, perhaps?
>>> I can think of several aspects of the public interest, normally
>>> implemented through Applicable Laws, which ICANN and its contracted
>>> parties should respect.
>>> PS:We foresaw that when ICANN was being set up.
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community