[Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents

[Nigel Roberts]

I'm actually more with Paul Twomey. Here's my thinking.

The UDHR is a world-wide, universally respected statement of basic human 
rights.

Including a vague committement to 'human rights' might be later 
interpreted to mean ICANN was committed to something we haven't even 
considered.

But the important thing is this: that we include the qualifier that the 
committment is in the context of ICANN's specified mission, and not wider.



On 07/10/15 10:07, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> Nigel,
>
> as much as I dislike to agree with ICANN Legal on anything :-)-O, Ms
> Eisner may have a point here.
>
> Not from a legal perspective, ie "as ratified" but from the corporate
> (including entering into (future) financial commitments "blindly").
>
> I will go with the Consensus on this, but maybe we want to look at this
> some more.
>
> el
>
> On 2015-10-07 10:53, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/10/15 01:54, Samantha Eisner wrote:
>>> Question 1: No.  ICANN does not include references to other specific
>>> documents in its governing documents, particularly external documents
>>> that can be changed without ICANN’s consent or inputs.
>>>
>>
>>
>> With respect,
>>
>> (a) the UDHR is not going to change.
>> (b) the By Law can refer to the text as ratified.
>
>
>