[Wp4] Board comments on Annex 6

Niels ten Oever lists at digitaldissidents.org
Fri Dec 18 10:02:09 UTC 2015

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,


On 7 November 2015 07:26:23 GMT+08:00, Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org> wrote:
>Dear Eberhard,
>That's exactly what the text says. Am not sure what is a showstopper
>for you.
>On 6 November 2015 07:20:12 GMT-02:00, Dr Eberhard W Lisse
><el at lisse.NA> wrote:
>>Hash: SHA1
>>We have been through this before.
>>ICANN must respect human rights.
>>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.
>>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 at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
>>> _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list 
>>> Wp4 at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
>>- -- 
>>Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
>>el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
>>PO Box 8421             \     /
>>Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/
>>Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
>>Wp4 mailing list
>>Wp4 at icann.org
>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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp4/attachments/20151218/90eb0928/attachment.html>

More information about the Wp4 mailing list