[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Final clean of mission and core values from Becky

[Greg Shatan]

I think it's inaccurate to refer to the HR text proposed a few hours ago as
"agreed to."  For the avoidance of doubt, I am repeating my change to this
text (proposed in another thread), in this thread as well:

==========================

There is one element in the newly proposed additional text which really
must be changed.  It is the list of "requirements," being presented as if
these are agreed text:

These discussions identified the following, non-exhaustive, list of
accountability-related requirements :
- the NTIA criteria to maintain the openness of the Internet, including
free expression and the free flow of information
- the need to avoid extending Icann's mission into content regulation
- the importance of assessing the impact of Icann policies on Human rights

There was no agreement or consensus that these are "requirements."  They
are reasons offered during the discussions by those who wanted language (or
particular language) included.  I do not object to the first (because it's
a statement of fact, and presented as such, and is not being used as an
argument for particular text (to which I object)) or the third (because I
agree with it, and it does not exclude other types of impact assessment).

However, I have to object to the second "requirement."  I've only seen this
mentioned by one or two people and it has not even been seriously discussed
on the list or on any call in relation to the Human Rights commitment.
More to the point, I do not think that this point is a reason why we should
have Human Rights language in the Bylaws and I object to the linkage being
enshrined in this document.  There are types of content control that
clearly implicate Human Rights concerns and others that do not (indeed
there are those that are consistent with and uphold fundamental Human
Rights).  ICANN's relationship to "content regulation" is not *per se* a
Human Rights issue.

If we had time, I might make a broad demand regarding this section, which
would be followed by discussion and most likely a compromise.  Since we
don't have time, I will start with the compromise, which removes no text
(even text I disagree with).  It simply revises the introduction so there
is no implication that this is an agreed list of "requirements":

In these discussions, some participants raised the following as
accountability-related reasons for including a commitment to fundamental
Human Rights in the Bylaws: :

I can live with this in the text without further comment.  Please make this
change.  Thank you.

========================

Greg

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:

> Thanks!
>
> The language incorporated on HR addresses the point I made (regarding
> ICANN's mission) earlier today in a separate email thread. Looks good to
> me.
>
> Best,
> Keith
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Attached in Word and PDF.
>
> Contains HR wording agreed to today.
>
> May need some formatting.
>
> Cheers.
>
> B.
>
> <31 July FINAL clean TEXT FOR REPORT Revised Mission & Core Values from
> Initial Draft Report.pdf>
>
> <31 July FINAL clean TEXT FOR REPORT Revised Mission & Core Values from
> Initial Draft Report.docx>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150731/d3df0965/attachment.html>