[CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements

Nigel Roberts nigel at channelisles.net
Thu Jul 30 15:00:42 UTC 2015


Stephanie

The whole debate about the right to private and family life is more nuanced.

Without turning this list into a discussion on how respect for human 
rights is guaranteed on this contintent, it's worth pointing out that 
respecting the right of privacy does NOT mean closing off domain 
registration data to law enforcment. Quite the opposite.

The privacy right is a qualified right -- so it CAN be interfered with

- lawfully, when necessary in a democratic society; so long as it is
- proportionate.

And I don't think that conflicts with anybody's 'marching orders'.


On 30/07/15 15:53, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> I hate to complicate this discussion, but I feel duty bound to point out
> that the first human right many people think of these days with respect
> to the domain name registration system is privacy.  Freedom of
> expression and the openness of the Internet rolls more easily off the
> tongue....but if anyone says what about privacy, the WHOIS would have to
> be re-examined.  This of course conflicts with the marching orders that
> the NTIA has had for ICANN since its inception.
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 2015-07-30 5:59, Erika Mann 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
>> 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
>



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list