[CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Thu Jul 30 12:21:14 UTC 2015


Kavouss,

1. My insistence on human right has _nothing_ to do with .gay.  If
anything my relationship with .gay has something to do with my
commitment to human rights.

2. The issue of human rights is so much larger than any gtld application
and touches on ICANN as a whole.

3. To get our 'facts' straight:

3.1 GAC did not define .gay as a sensitive string nor did it raise any
advice with regard to this string

3.2 While some countries did send in comments abhorring the string and
the very ungodly existence of gay people, none of them filed a formal
objection.

avri


On 30-Jul-15 12:26, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear Colleagues
> Dear Avri
> The string that you gave referred to was subject to severe objections
> by GAC and several statements by other countries.
> Pls do not the very fundamental issue of Human Rights  with a specific
> and sensitive string.
> We should be mindful not to provoke strong reaction from various people.
> Please read decisions of ICANN and statements of countries in this regard.
>
>  
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:59, Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com
> <mailto:erika at erikamann.com>> wrote:
>
>> In addition to Avri's points, such a provision could help as well to
>> ensure that future business models that relate to more sensitive
>> strings (.gay for example) will continue to be treated as any other
>> string. 
>>
>> Erika
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     Off the top of my head, I think a first thing we would have to do
>>     would
>>     be to start understanding the impact, if any, of ICANN operations and
>>     policies on human rights.  Some of this work is already starting
>>     in the
>>     human rights working party (HRWP), though that is a rather informal
>>     beginning.  I would also think that some part of the staff would
>>     need to
>>     start taking these issues into consideration.  I do not think that it
>>     would cause any serious changes in the near future but would make us
>>     more aware as time went on, and would give us a basis for discussion
>>     both in the HRWP and in the ACSO and Board.
>>
>>     In terms of the specific things it might limt us from, and this would
>>     require some analysis on specifc events, might be creating any
>>     kinds of
>>     policies or operations that forced  limitation of content, beyond the
>>     limitations required by law for incitement, on domain named
>>     sites.  It
>>     would in fact strengthen our postion in that respect.
>>
>>     Most important though, it would cover a hole left by the loss of the
>>     NTIA backstop, on any issue concerning freedom of expression,
>>     free flow
>>     of information or openness of the Internet.
>>
>>     thanks
>>     avri
>>
>>     On 30-Jul-15 11:07, Drazek, Keith wrote:
>>     > Hi Chris,
>>     >
>>     > I'll have to defer to others with more expertise on this one. 
>>     It's a
>>     > good question that should be addressed.
>>     >
>>     > Best,
>>     > Keith
>>     >
>>     > On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au
>>     <mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>
>>     > <mailto:ceo at auda.org.au <mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>>> wrote:
>>     >
>>     >> Keith,
>>     >>
>>     >> This looks interesting. Could we think of an example of something
>>     >> concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment? Or
>>     >> something it would not be able to do?
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> Cheers,
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> Chris
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:16 , Drazek, Keith
>>     <kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>
>>     >>> <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>> wrote:
>>     >>>
>>     >>> Hi Avri,
>>     >>>
>>     >>> In order to tie your suggestion directly to the language in
>>     >>> Secretary Strickling's April 2014 written congressional testimony
>>     >>> (included in a prior email) and to reduce concerns about scope
>>     >>> creep, would language along these lines be acceptable to you?
>>     >>>
>>     >>>> "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be
>>     committed
>>     >>>> to respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free
>>     >>>> expression and the free flow of information."
>>     >>>
>>     >>> Speaking personally, I could probably support this
>>     formulation. To
>>     >>> be clear, I have not discussed this with the RySG, but it's
>>     >>> consistent with the requirements outlined by NTIA so I think it's
>>     >>> certainly worth considering.
>>     >>>
>>     >>> I'm not advocating including this in the Bylaws, but I'm not
>>     >>> objecting to it either. However, if we don't reach consensus for
>>     >>> adding to the Bylaws, I definitely think this is worth further
>>     >>> consideration in WS2 and would support an explicit reference
>>     using
>>     >>> this or similar language and timetable for doing so.
>>     >>>
>>     >>> Regards,
>>     >>> Keith
>>     >>>
>>     >>>> On Jul 30, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>     <mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>     >>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>> wrote:
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>> Within its mission, ICANN will be committed to respect
>>     fundamental
>>     >>>>  human rights in its operationsespecially with regard to the
>>     exercise
>>     >>>>  of free expression or the free flow of information.
>>     >>> _______________________________________________
>>     >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>     >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>     >>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>     <mailto: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
>>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>     >
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>     ---
>>     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>     https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>     <mailto: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
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list