[CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
crg at isoc-cr.org
Thu Jul 30 16:16:18 UTC 2015
Dear Steve,
Maybe Tunis agenda or anything related to the information society we live
in? In any case, if we can go at least a little step further than the
strict language of 1st anmendemnt, so it sounds more modern and
international would be a great step forward.
Best
Carlos Raúl
On Jul 30, 2015 10:00 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
wrote:
> The compromise text says "fundamental human rights of the exercise of free
> expression and the free flow of information”.
>
> But I do not find “free flow if information” on the UN list of fundamental
> human rights. Where is that right stated as fundamental?
>
>
>
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Greg Shatan
> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM
> To: Stephanie Perrin
> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org"
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements
>
> Nobody has to publish their confidential information to the world in order
> to register a domain name. Privacy/proxy services are readily available
> and there is no formal proposal to take that away from anyone. I agree we
> can and should take this debate elsewhere, since it is a nuanced one, and
> there has been much misinformation spread on the topic.
>
> However, if adding the proposed language to the Bylaws changes how ICANN
> should "determine where the human rights obligations fall" in the
> policy-making process relating to this issue, then this is a very
> significant change.
>
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> No actually I am referring to scammers, spammers, doxxers, and really
>> irritating (but not criminal) commercial elements who mine the WHOIS
>> database to pursue innocent folks who have to publish their confidential
>> information to the world in order to register a domain name.
>> A public directory is not the way to control lawbreakers who hide behind
>> proxy services, as has been amply debated in the recent PPSAI public
>> comments period.
>> Anyway lets take this debate elsewhere as it does not contribute much to
>> the topic. Except, I would point out, that the risk balance between the
>> harm done by public disclosure through WHOIS has changed in the 17 years
>> that the Internet has been growing up, and it is time to revisit who is at
>> risk, and determine where the human rights obligations fall. As you can
>> tell, I believe privacy and the people who need it are more at risk today
>> than law enforcement operations (who can find the registrars and the ISPs,
>> and request the data they need there, in addition to more relevant info
>> such as payment details). Disclosure of address and phone numbers is
>> permanent and irrevocable thanks to value added services that have grown up
>> to mine the WHOIS data.
>> kind regards,
>> Stephanie
>>
>>
>> On 2015-07-30 11:18, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>
>> Stephanie,
>>
>> Are you referring to the criminal element who knows how to use WHOIS to
>> hide themselves? That is certainly a huge problem and not limited to
>> violations of criminal law -- it is also a huge problem with regard to
>> lawbreakers whose actions are not criminal in nature.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Totally agree Nigel, but providing access to law enforcement is not the
>>> same as publishing to the world, and the criminal element who know how to
>>> use WHOIS. At the moment, options for nuanced disclosure are limited.
>>> SP
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2015-07-30 11:00, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 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
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150730/30ba79cf/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list