[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
Rahul Sharma
wisdom.stoic at gmail.com
Thu Feb 19 19:40:53 UTC 2015
Hi All,
I agree with the CSR option as supported by many others as I believe it's
outside remit of ICANN to decide on 'public interest' or 'human rights'
issues. And if for any reason we need to stick to 'Public Interest', in my
opinion it should be replaced by 'Larger Public Interest' as there could be
many, and sometimes conflicting public interests- and so larger public
interest needs to prevail.
Having this amendment, I would still not support Avri's idea of using
'Larger Public Interest consistent with Human Rights' because it places
human rights above larger public interest. In numerous constitutions and
legislations across the world, issues such as larger public interest,
national security etc. scores over human rights in case of a conflict.
Regards,
Rahul Sharma
On 19 February 2015 at 23:27, <Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu> wrote:
> I completely agree with *Robin* below, but would like to reiterate that
> such views are CSR strategies are not opposite but complementary. The use
> of CSR has to do precisely with how to make the commitment to respect human
> rights operational. Reference to HR in the bylaws linked to ICANN's mandate
> is perfectly fine, but in order to take the commitment further I am of the
> view that it is necessary to implement CSR strategies. *Carlos*, I am
> sure that Greg and I did not mean to reduce freedoms to a mere CSR
> framework.
>
>
>
> In Frankfurt I made a small intervention about the *United Nation's
> Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights* (UNGPs), adopted by
> unanimity by the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) on 16 June 2011,
> and which are the most comprehensive and globally recognised standard for
> preventing and addressing the risk of adverse impacts on human rights
> linked to business activity. The EU has played a leading role in the
> promotion of the UNGPs, recognising them as “the authoritative policy
> framework” in the field of business and human rights.
>
> The UNGPs are a set of 31 guiding principles, structured according to
> three distinct but interrelated pillars:
>
> (1) The state duty to protect against human rights abuses by
> third parties, including businesses, through appropriate policies,
> regulation and adjudication;
>
> (2) The corporate responsibility to respect human rights, in
> essence meaning to act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights
> of others; and
>
> (3) The need for greater access by victims to effective remedy,
> judicial and non-judicial.
>
> The UNGPs are the first universally accepted global framework to address
> and reduce corporate-related human rights harm. For decades before, the
> international community failed to achieve consensus on such a widely
> recognised framework. The UNGPs were developed during six years of
> extensive consultations with stakeholder groups, including governments,
> NGOs and business. This work was led by Harvard Professor John Ruggie, who
> served as the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Business
> and Human Rights from 2005-2011.
>
> As such, the UNGPs are not legally binding. Nor did they introduce new
> international law on Business and Human Rights. As Professor Ruggie stated
> in his report to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), their “normative
> contribution lies in elaborating the implications of existing standards and
> practices for states and businesses; integrating them within a single,
> logically coherent and comprehensive template; and identifying where the
> current regime falls short and how it could be improved.”
>
> As I also noted in Frankfurt, today the UNGPs enjoy *wide recognition*
> and support from the business and civil society communities. In June 2014
> the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution (HRC 26/22) by consensus,
> renewing the mandate of the Working Group on Human Rights and Transnational
> Corporations and other Enterprises, with a view to continuing the promotion
> and implementation of the UNGPs world-wide.
>
> Some of the UNGPs' core provisions are now incorporated into key
> international documents, including the new human rights chapter in the OECD
> Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, ISO 26000, the new Sustainability
> Policy of the International Finance Corporation, the EIB’s Environment and
> Social Handbook and the European Commission’s policy on Corporate Social
> Responsibility...
>
> *If is not by means of a CSR framework based on these sort of UNGP
> standards, how is otherwise ICANN expected to measurably respect and
> protect human rights? *
>
> In my humble opinion, the duty to respect International law somewhat
> already in the AoI and in the Bylaws and indeed it deserves to be further
> precised of enhanced (with references to International HR standards, for
> instance, as we have proposed in different fora) but without practical
> means to implement it, the "hole" is still there, even though we may have
> managed to fit in the right words in the right governing documents.
>
> Best
>
> Camino
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2015 6:31 PM
> *To:* robin at ipjustice.org; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
>
>
>
> Dear Robin
>
>
>
> I feel you have very precisely identified the dilemma we are confronting
> here. How we resolve this is key for the future of this framework.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Jorge Cancio
>
>
>
> *Von:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Robin
> Gross
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2015 17:17
> *An:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org Community
> *Betreff:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
>
>
>
> The problem is that ICANN is a private corporation and it is engaging in
> public governance functions. The quasi public-private structure creates a
> challenge because if it were a traditional government, it would be required
> to respect human rights in the performance of public governance functions,
> and some argue that because it is a private corporation it has no
> obligation to respect rights (years ago ICANN's lawyers argued in the xxx
> case that, as a contractee to the US Govt, it was obligated to protect free
> expression).
>
>
>
> So the traditional framework breaks down because we've got a private
> corporation undertaking public governance functions, but without the
> traditional protections (respecting human rights) in the performance of
> those public functions.
>
>
>
> If this "hole" is not plugged, the multi-stakeholder model is inadequate
> for Internet governance. "Out-sourcing" public governance functions to
> private corporations is fine, so long as we don't lose the protections
> afforded by public governance institutions. If there is no duty to
> protect free expression and privacy by those organizations who set policies
> governing the Internet, we've taken a step-backward with
> multi-stakholderism, although it is not too late to fix.
>
>
>
> At its core, what I'm arguing here is that ICANN should respect free
> speech, privacy, and due process rights in its carrying out of its public
> governance functions, so when ICANN makes a policy, it doesn't derogate
> from the fundamental rights afforded to Internet users in traditional
> governance institutions. If ICANN wants to engage in public governance
> functions, it must accept public governance responsibilities.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 18, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Carlos:
>
>
>
> Nobody's reducing anything.
>
>
>
> First off, the First Amendment is really irrelevant to this discussion, as
> wonderful as it is. It prevents *the federal government from making laws*
> abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly or
> respecting an establishment of religion. We are not talking about actions
> of the U.S. government here, and ICANN has never been considered a part of
> the U.S. government. The First Amendment does not apply to private
> entities. So the First Amendment really has nothing to do with this
> conversation, other than to confuse it.
>
>
>
> ICANN, as a private entity, has never been subject to the First Amendment,
> so nothing's changing in that regard. Furthermore, it's inaccurate,
> misleading and unhelpful to refer to this as a privatization. The
> "privatization" of the Internet, if such a thing can ever be said to have
> occurred, occurred decades ago. The stewardship of the US government,
> while broader than the IANA Functions that are at the core of that
> stewardship, never extended in any way to applying First Amendment
> protections or prohibitions to ICANN's action, much less making ICANN an
> arm of the state.
>
>
>
> Also, nothing's changing with regard to ICANN's obligation to perform in
> the public interest. ICANN's public interest obligations do make it
> different from private for-profit entities. Adopting a Corporate Social
> Responsibility program and policy would not in any way diminish or replace
> ICANN's public interest obligations. Rather, CSR policies would complement
> and act as a (non-exclusive) manifestation of ICANN's commitment to the
> public interest. A CSR program is not a "simple corporate social
> strategy." These can be fundamental changes in how a corporation operates
> and make decisions -- nothing simple about it. And your reference to it as
> a "strategy" makes it sound quite sinister. Strategy to do what? If it's
> any kind of strategy, it's a strategy to improve and codify ICANN's
> socially responsible policies and actions. Corporate Social Responsibility
> is a well-recognized and growing class of actions intended to improve the
> actions and policies of all types of entities -- the fact that it has
> "corporate" in the title doesn't make it dark and suspicious.
>
>
>
> If this group wants to devote itself to trying to define in detail what
> the "public interest" is for ICANN, that will pull us way off track.
> Although the principle is basic, the nuances once you try to parse it out
> will be anything but basic. This can be a goal for ICANN in the long run,
> and as Samantha Eisner indicated, this is an effort that is underway.
> Rather than pulling that task into this group, it would make more sense for
> those interested in that effort to plug into that effort, and to consider
> appropriate linkages between that effort and this one.
>
>
>
> I do agree with one of your conclusions -- we should leave things as they
> are under California law. Your other choice -- "talking about a move to a
> stronger (international) legal regime" -- is baffling in many ways.
> Stronger in what ways? And how would that would be relevant to ICANN's
> commitment to the public interest? What is an international regime? All
> organizations other than IGO's are located in a nation. And how would this
> effect every other ICANN issue? And how would such a conversation serve
> the overall needs and demands of this group, in any kind of reasonable
> timeframe?
>
>
>
> I think you've tried to introduce a sense of vague unease into this
> dialogue, but there's really nothing to back it up. That's unfortunate,
> since such vague misgivings tend to cloud rather than clarify, especially
> when they have no basis. You are trying to make it seem like grand First
> Amendment protections are being traded for some narrow, cynical corporate
> strategy. That's just not true.
>
>
>
> If you are not feeling well, it is probably due to a lack of information,
> or perhaps something you ate. I've tried to deal with the former. Can't
> help you with the latter.
>
>
>
> And finally, I'm not sure what being on the GNSO Council has to do with
> this -- especially as the nonvoting NomCom representative who does not
> represent any stakeholder group or constituency. Your contributions on the
> Council are much appreciated, but not relevant here, and it might give some
> people the impression you are speaking for for the GNSO Council, which is
> not the case. I could put a title under my name, too, but since I'm not
> speaking for that organization, it would be inappropriate to do so.
>
>
>
> I hope we can keep these discussions focused on fruitful, substantive
> efforts.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <
> carlosraulg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is very curious indeed. I’m not a lawyer, but
>
>
>
> a) From the perspective of a US neighbour,
>
> b) who grew up to believe that the constitutional basis for freedom of
> speech, religion and assembly (1st amendment) was the highest legal level
> of human rights possible, and
>
> c) while we are talking about the transition of the stewardship from the
> US Government over the Internet to the private sector,
>
> d) to see such freedoms reduced to a simple corporate social strategy
>
>
>
> *is quite a discomforting*.
>
>
>
> I don’t feel good at all, due to the lack of a definition or at least
> joint framework of the public interest we expect from a “privatised”
> Internet in this discussion. If we cannot agree on such a basic principle
> that has been for a long time in the ICANN bylaws, we might as well a)
> leave things the way they are under California Law or b) start talking
> about a move to a stronger (international) legal regime.
>
>
>
> Carlos Raul Gutierrez
>
> GNSO Council
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 18, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Camino,
>
>
>
> I think the suggestion of re-framing the Human Rights issue in a Corporate
> Social Responsibility framework is an excellent and pragmatic one. This is
> much more "native" to a corporate entity like ICANN, and there are a lot of
> well-developed materials, practices and policies for CSR. This makes CSR
> more "adoptable" in the short run than a human rights platform. HR may be
> broader than CSR, but we could see what issues remain after a CSR framework
> for ICANN is identified.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:21 PM, <Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu> wrote:
>
> I am of the view that different members of the ICANN community
> understand quite differently the relationship "ICANN-HR-Public Interest".
>
> The fact that ICANN is more attentive to human rights considerations does
> not entail an extension of its corporate mandate, but a proper and timely
> assessment of some of its activities and operations in light of the
> particular circumstances in which a given decision is made, a TLD is
> delegated, a Board resolution is passed, etc.. Some tend to see this more
> as a human rights impact assessment rather than an implementation of the
> human rights International instruments by the book.
>
> Human Rights as such are binding only for state actors, however that does
> not enter into conflict with the fact that a more attentive approach by
> ICANN towards human rights and "ethical business" could help the
> organisation develop a more accountable and transparent way of doing
> business.
>
> To complicate the landscape a bit further, one can factor in "public
> interest" considerations. I believe each nation, each jurisdiction, could
> come up with its own interpretation of what public interest means, but that
> must not enter into conflict with the fact that any definition of public
> interest could be perfectly enhanced by making reference to human rights
> international standards (something we all know about and for which one can
> easily find widely accepted references online/codified). Right now ICANNs
> notion of public interest is insufficiently clear to provide guidance to
> the policy development process and that does not play in favour of any
> stakeholder: it can be abused by parties wanting to place literally
> "everything" under the public interest, and it can be downplayed by parties
> only interested in the economic angle of the DNS.
>
> Accountability requires measurable standards; Human rights could serve to
> delineate the notion of public interest but since the concept of public
> interest is so much broader than that, that the conversation could last ad
> infinitum.
>
> In sum, while some parts of the community continue to discuss whether is
> adequate to include references to human rights in the Bylaws, or draw a
> link between human rights and public interest, which I find a valuable but
> lengthy discussion, there is some low hanging fruit in the ICANN strategy
> panel on Public Responsibility Framework which could easily be turned into
> a proper Corporate Social Responsibility strategy, based on measurable
> indicators. Google does it, Microsoft does it, Yahoo does it….
>
> My question is, why are we still focusing on HR and public interest rather
> than giving a different spin to this heading and renaming to "CSR"? Isn't'
> it easier to deal with CSR concepts and frameworks in a corporate
> environment like ICANN?
>
> Last not least, my purely personal view is that the fact that there is no
> GAC consensus in the realm of HR and ICANN is irrelevant for the community
> and for this group so as to continue discussions around proposals that
> touch upon ICANN and human rights. In fact, the discussions in this group
> could well enlighten or provide useful feedback to those discussions in the
> GAC or in the recently created CCWG-Human Rights in the future. I fail to
> see why the remit of one group one should prevent the work of the other,
> and vice versa.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> (Ms) Camino Manjon-Sierra
> European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology
> Unit D1 - International relations
>
> Internet Governance
>
> Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/109) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium
> T: +32-2-29-78797 M: +32-488-203-447
>
> E: Camino.Manjon at ec.europa.eu
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg
> Shatan
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:05 PM
> *To:* Suzanne Radell
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
>
>
>
>
>
> I am loathe to build a hard linkage between "public interest" and "human
> rights." I don't think it will benefit consideration of either one. Each
> of these issues raise complexities in the ICANN context. There is no clear
> definition of "public interest" in the ICANN context. There is also no
> clear definition of "human rights" in the ICANN context. While human
> rights are critically important and no one (well, hardly anyone) is against
> human rights, ICANN is not a human rights organization per se. Many of the
> things that ICANN does in the "public interest" have nothing to do with
> human rights (positively or negatively). There may also be human rights
> issues that are not directly related to whether ICANN is acting in the
> "public interest."
>
>
>
> I would instead suggest that work related to ICANN and the "global public
> interest" and ICANN and its relationship to human rights should proceed
> separately. There is room for significant debate on each of these topics,
> and tying them together will delay or sink both. That does not mean
> bringing up "human rights" in the discussion of "global public interest" is
> taboo -- far from it.
>
>
>
> This group may find interesting the following excerpts from the Report of
> Public Comments on the ICANN Draft 5-Year Plan (available at
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-draft-five-year-ops-06feb15-en.pdf
> )
>
>
>
> COMMENT: The entire objective is based on the concept of “public interest”
> which has a different meaning in different places (countries and contexts).
> Therefore, agreeing on a definition – that should include clear boundaries
> – of “public interest” should be at the core of the entire objective
>
> ANSWER: Work was carried out by the Strategy Panel on the Public
> Responsibility Framework in consultation with the community through
> webinars and open sessions at ICANN meetings. We will build on this work
> moving forward and will work on agreeing on definition of “public interest”
> within the ICANN context with the community.
>
>
>
> COMMENT: S.G. 5.1 commits ICANN to act as a “steward of the public
> interest” as part of Strategic Objective 5: “Develop and Implement a Global
> Public Interest Framework Bounded By ICANN’s Mission”. The sole metric of
> S.G. 5.1 refers to a “common consensus based definition of public
> interest”. Does such a definition currently exist? If so, what is it? If
> not, how does ICANN propose to develop one?
>
> ANSWER: The definition was developed and proposed by the Strategy Panel on
> Public Responsibility framework. The Panel defined the global public
> interest of the Internet as ensuring that the Internet “becomes, and
> continues to be, healthy, open, and accessible across the globe”.
> Recognizing that this is a broad concept that permeates all of ICANN’s
> work, the Panel determined that for practical and operational reasons
> “public responsibility” work should be streamlined through one department
> tasked with serving the community, broadening it, and facilitating
> participation through specific and measurable tracks. Building on the work
> of the Panel and community requests, the DPRD [Development and Public
> Responsibility Department] is an operational department focused on public
> responsibility work centered on the priorities and focus areas identified
> through the regional engagement strategies and through community engagement
> with the Panel. The DPRD functions in collaboration with regional VPs,
> other ICANN departments, external organizations, and through engagement
> with Governments, ccTLD admins, and GAC members in developing and
> underdeveloped countries who serve as key entry points to these regions so
> that we can assist in strengthening IG structures leading to eventual
> handover to SO/ACs and the wider community.
>
>
>
> In other words, it appears that ICANN will be using as a definition of
> “global public interest” a standard developed by the Strategy Panel on
> Public Responsibility Framework, one of several panels appointed in 2013
> by ICANN's leadership without community input and whose final report,
> issued about a year ago, seemingly sank without a trace (see
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/public-responsibility-2013-10-11-en
> ).
>
>
>
> This raises an accountability issue in and of itself.....
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Suzanne Radell <SRadell at ntia.doc.gov>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks all for this exchange, and to Olivier in particular for noting what
> seems to be a nascent community-wide initiative. The GAC reached agreement
> in Singapore to establish a GAC working group on the subject, and has not
> yet arrived at a shared vision. In the absence of broad,
> community-wide agreement as to the applicability of human rights
> obligations or the scope of ICANN's actual or potential responsibilities in
> this area, should the CCWG text contain specific references to human
> rights? Cheers, Suz
>
>
>
> *Suzanne Murray Radell *
>
>
>
> * Senior Policy Advisor NTIA/Office of International Affairs PH:
> 202-482-3167 <202-482-3167> FX: 202-482-1865 <202-482-1865>*
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ
> Crepin-Leblond [ocl at gih.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:59 AM
> *To:* Avri Doria; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
>
> Dear Avri,
>
> I note that there is currently an initiative regarding human rights and/at
> ICANN and a session took place in Singapore, to discuss its next steps.
> http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-human-rights
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 18/02/2015 20:20, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Many of us argue that Human Rights is an essential component of any
> definition of Public Interest. How can something be in the Public Interest
> if it contravenes human rights, especially those that are binding upon
> nations and obligatory for businesses, especially those which are defined
> as adhering to all applicable international law.
>
> However, we have seen that in arriving at expression of public interest,
> it is often necessary to balance those human rights, all of which stand
> equal as human rights, but that have different emphasis in different
> national regimes, even among those who justifiably can claim an adherence
> to human rights.
>
> As a organization, ICANN needs to adhere to human rights mandates and
> needs to do so in the public interest. It is my understanding that our
> bottom-up processes are the means by which we determine our understanding
> of the public interest. But in doing so, we must always be sure we do not
> infringe upon human rights.
>
> Just as there are many ways to achieve stability, security and resilience,
> and we determine that through our bottom-up processes, as modulated through
> the advice of our experts on security and stability in the SSAC and RSSAC,
> there are many ways to serve the public interest that need to be determined
> through adherence to bylaws manadated bottom-up processes and modulated
> through expert advice on human rights.
>
> So perhaps we should be considering "public interest consistent with human
> rights."
>
> avri
>
> I
>
> On 18-Feb-15 05:15, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> We should avoid to be engaged doing
>
> something that we know would no tangible
>
> results.
>
> I do not be infavour of replacing public interest
>
> With anything such as human rights and
>
> freedom Of expression, acknowledging
>
> That the latter two issues are very important
>
> But are quite difficult to limit public interests to
>
> These two issues
>
> Pls be prudent
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 17 Feb 2015, at 22:43, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
> I'm a bit confused Tijani.
>
>
>
> First, you said you didn't remember the suggestion and now you state the
> suggestion had no support. As I wasn't able to be in Frankfurt I would
> appreciate clarification of the status of this worthy idea. I'm personally
> not a big fan of the generic term "public interest", finding that in
> practice "public interest" usually morphs into "personal interest": that
> is, "the public it is I". I realise that creation of a consensus definition
> of the public interest is called for in the draft 5 year OP but I do find
> Robin's idea to be worthy of discussion by the wider WG and thank staff for
> including it in the summary document.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn>
> wrote:
>
> Yes you did in Frankfurt, and there was no support to your suggestion.
>
>
>
> The “public interest” or the “benefit of the public, not just in the
> interests of a particular set of stakeholders” had a large support as part
> of the “CCWG Accountability – Problem definition” document (purposes of
> ICANN’s accountability, d.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>
> Executive Director
>
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>
> Phone: + 216 41 649 605
>
> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
>
> Fax: + 216 70 853 376
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *De :* Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org <robin at ipjustice.org>]
> *Envoyé :* mardi 17 février 2015 18:40
> *À :* Tijani BEN JEMAA
> *Cc :* 'Adam Peake'; 'Accountability Cross Community'
> *Objet :* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
>
>
>
> Yes, I made this suggestion.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Adam,
>
>
>
> I may have missed some of the mails exchanged but I don’t remember that it
> was suggested that the public interest be replaced by human rights and
> internet freedom.
>
>
>
> Tijani
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] De la part de Adam
> Peake
> Envoyé : lundi 16 février 2015 18:45
> À : Accountability Cross Community
> Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG list summary, Jan 30 to Feb 5
>
>
>
> Apologies for the delay sending this summary. It was sent to the advisors
> last week.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> <~WRD000.jpg> <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant
> parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est
> active.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant
> parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est
> active.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
> --
>
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
>
> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
>
> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
>
> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150220/bf24582b/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list