[Wp4] Board comments on Annex 6
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Sat Dec 19 22:34:39 UTC 2015
Or actually, the right question is "what is it about a commitment to
transparency that threatens the functioning of the network 365/24/7?" I
can't honestly see an answer to that. In other words, the burden is on the
the Board not us ...
Sorry ... I'm sure you don't agree Paul -- but if you believe in the
bottom-up process that's the way the system should work
P
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message-----
From: wp4-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Nigel Roberts
Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2015 3:46 PM
To: wp4 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Wp4] Board comments on Annex 6
Actually, I think it is for the WG and the Board to tell us what human
rights they'd like the possibility to infringe, and why.
(George Bush wasn't able to do that in 2002 when he withdrew the United
States from the International Criminal Court since he couldn't foretell than
an Abu Ghr'aib might happen. Oh no.)
On 12/19/2015 07:11 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
> It would be best to engage the Board members on the CCWG to
> understand better what scenarios they identified with the language.
> (And I think it would be good for us to give concrete examples of
> actual breach of human rights within ICANN that we are concerned about
> - that can focus the minds/conversation) Paul +1 Kavouss
>
>
> 2015-12-19 15:28 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>:
>
> On Dec 18, 2015 23:18, "Paul Twomey" <paul.twomey at argopacific.com
> <mailto:paul.twomey at argopacific.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It would be best to engage the Board members on the CCWG to
understand better what scenarios they identified with the language. (And I
think it would be good for us to give concrete examples of actual breach of
human rights within ICANN that we are concerned about - that can focus the
minds/conversation)
> >
>
> SO: +1 to that. The IAB's comment was mute (neutral) about this,
> don't know if the NRO-EC will be making comment on this subject as
well.
>
> Regards
> > Paul Twomey
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/19/15 1:13 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
> >>
> >> It's OK Niels, they also think that increased transparency is
against the global public interest. I infer that they think that the GPI is
equivalent to whatever gives them the least amount of constraint and the
greatest amount of obscured power.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To say I am disappointed in the Board is to understate the matter.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Paul Rosenzweig
> >>
> >>Paul.rosenzweig at gmail.com <mailto:Paul.rosenzweig at gmail.com>
> >>
> >>+1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
> >>
> >> VOIP:+1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
> >>
> >> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> >>
> >> Costa Rica:+506 7008 3964 <tel:%2B506%207008%203964>
> >>
> >> Our travel blog:www.paulandkatyexcellentadventure.blogspot.com
> <http://www.paulandkatyexcellentadventure.blogspot.com>
> >>
> >> My professional blog:www.paulrosenzweigesq.com
<http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com>
> >>
> >> Link to my PGP Key
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> >> From: wp4-bounces at icann.org <mailto:wp4-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:wp4-bounces at icann.org <mailto:wp4-bounces at icann.org>] On
> Behalf Of Niels ten Oever
> >> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 5:34 AM
> >> To: wp4 at icann.org <mailto:wp4 at icann.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Wp4] Board comments on Annex 6
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Pardon me. This time with attachment.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Niels
> >>
> >> On 18 December 2015 18:02:09 GMT+08:00, Niels ten Oever
> <lists at digitaldissidents.org <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org>>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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,
> >>>
> >>> Niels
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> .
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my
brevity.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wp4 mailing list
> >> Wp4 at icann.org <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr Paul Twomey
> > Managing Director
> > Argo P at cific
> >
> > US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 <tel:%2B1%20310%20279%202366>
> > Aust M: +61 416 238 501 <tel:%2B61%20416%20238%20501>
> >
> > www.argopacific.com <http://www.argopacific.com>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wp4 mailing list
> > Wp4 at icann.org <mailto:Wp4 at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4 at icann.org <mailto: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
>
_______________________________________________
Wp4 mailing list
Wp4 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
More information about the Wp4
mailing list