<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
As Carlos has said, the Tunis agenda attempted to
clarify...Unfortunately the 1948 text was not explicit, but you will
find it implicit in several sections, notably 19 and 27 (1). The UN
Guidelines on TBDF of 1990 attempted to clarify expectations,
largely in the context of data protection
<meta name="Title" content="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3ddcafaac.pdf">http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3ddcafaac.pdf</a>. As you can see from
the text here, the duty to protect the data subject is quite
explicit. The free flow of data is largely assumed, but expressed
in 9. You may also want to check out the last paragraph, when
thinking about ICANN accountability.<br>
<br>
I think this is a digression from your important work, folks. <br>
cheers SP<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2015-07-30 12:16, Carlos Raul
Gutierrez wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAB05tDT+yA+_eqZ8-BznmJBcsNHcssO9DFs6sY8KkuursjACgw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p dir="ltr">Dear Steve,</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Best</p>
<p dir="ltr">Carlos Raúl </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jul 30, 2015 10:00 AM, "Steve
DelBianco" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div
style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>
<div>The compromise text says "fundamental human rights of
the exercise of free expression and the free flow of
information”.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But I do not find “free flow if information” on the
UN list of fundamental human rights. Where is that
right stated as fundamental? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div
style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;text-align:left;color:black;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium
none;BORDER-LEFT:medium
none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-LEFT:0in;PADDING-RIGHT:0in;BORDER-TOP:#b5c4df
1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>>
on behalf of Greg Shatan<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Thursday,
July 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Stephanie
Perrin<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>"<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>"<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re:
[CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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. </div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font
face="verdana,sans-serif">However, if adding the
proposed language to the Bylaws changes how
ICANN should "</font><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">determine
where the human rights obligations fall"</span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font
face="verdana,sans-serif"> in the
policy-making process relating to this issue,
then this is a very significant change.</font></span><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font
face="verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</font></span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font
face="verdana,sans-serif">Greg</font></span></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at
11:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <span dir="ltr">
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca"
target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">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.<br>
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.
<br>
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.
<br>
kind regards,<br>
Stephanie
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div>On 2015-07-30 11:18, Greg Shatan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Stephanie,</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul
30, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Stephanie
Perrin <span dir="ltr">
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca"
target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
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.<span><font
color="#888888"><br>
SP</font></span>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
On 2015-07-30 11:00, Nigel
Roberts wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
Stephanie<br>
<br>
The whole debate about the
right to private and family
life is more nuanced.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
The privacy right is a
qualified right -- so it CAN
be interfered with<br>
<br>
- lawfully, when necessary
in a democratic society; so
long as it is<br>
- proportionate.<br>
<br>
And I don't think that
conflicts with anybody's
'marching orders'.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 30/07/15 15:53, Stephanie
Perrin wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
I hate to complicate this
discussion, but I feel
duty bound to point out<br>
that the first human right
many people think of these
days with respect<br>
to the domain name
registration system is
privacy. Freedom of<br>
expression and the
openness of the Internet
rolls more easily off the<br>
tongue....but if anyone
says what about privacy,
the WHOIS would have to<br>
be re-examined. This of
course conflicts with the
marching orders that<br>
the NTIA has had for ICANN
since its inception.<br>
Stephanie Perrin<br>
<br>
On 2015-07-30 5:59, Erika
Mann wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
In addition to Avri's
points, such a provision
could help as well to<br>
ensure that future
business models that
relate to more sensitive<br>
strings (.gay for
example) will continue
to be treated as any
other<br>
string.<br>
<br>
Erika<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at
11:42 AM, Avri Doria
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
Off the top of my
head, I think a first
thing we would have to
do<br>
would<br>
be to start
understanding the
impact, if any, of ICANN
operations and<br>
policies on human
rights. Some of this
work is already starting<br>
in the<br>
human rights working
party (HRWP), though
that is a rather
informal<br>
beginning. I would
also think that some
part of the staff would<br>
need to<br>
start taking these
issues into
consideration. I do not
think that it<br>
would cause any
serious changes in the
near future but would
make us<br>
more aware as time
went on, and would give
us a basis for
discussion<br>
both in the HRWP and
in the ACSO and Board.<br>
<br>
In terms of the
specific things it might
limt us from, and this
would<br>
require some
analysis on specifc
events, might be
creating any<br>
kinds of<br>
policies or
operations that forced
limitation of content,
beyond the<br>
limitations required
by law for incitement,
on domain named sites.
It<br>
would in fact
strengthen our postion
in that respect.<br>
<br>
Most important
though, it would cover a
hole left by the loss of
the<br>
NTIA backstop, on
any issue concerning
freedom of expression,
free<br>
flow<br>
of information or
openness of the
Internet.<br>
<br>
thanks<br>
avri<br>
<br>
><br>
> On Jul 30,
2015, at 11:01 AM, Chris
Disspain <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank">ceo@auda.org.au</a><br>
<mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank">ceo@auda.org.au</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank">ceo@auda.org.au</a>
<mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank">ceo@auda.org.au</a>>>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Keith,<br>
>><br>
>> This looks
interesting. Could we
think of an example of
something<br>
>> concrete
ICANN would have to do
if it made this
commitment? Or<br>
>> something
it would not be able to
do?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Chris<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> On 30
Jul 2015, at 18:16 ,
Drazek, Keith <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com" target="_blank">kdrazek@verisign.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com" target="_blank">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>><br>
>>>
<mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com" target="_blank">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>
<mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com" target="_blank">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>>>>
wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi
Avri,<br>
>>><br>
>>> In
order to tie your
suggestion directly to
the language in<br>
>>>
Secretary Strickling's
April 2014 written
congressional testimony<br>
>>>
(included in a prior
email) and to reduce
concerns about scope<br>
>>> creep,
would language along
these lines be
acceptable to you?<br>
>>><br>
>>>>
"Within its mission and
in its operations, ICANN
will be<br>
committed<br>
>>>> to
respect the fundamental
human rights of the
exercise of free<br>
>>>>
expression and the free
flow of information."<br>
>>><br>
>>>
Speaking personally, I
could probably support
this formulation. To<br>
>>> be
clear, I have not
discussed this with the
RySG, but it's<br>
>>>
consistent with the
requirements outlined by
NTIA so I think it's<br>
>>>
certainly worth
considering.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I'm not
advocating including
this in the Bylaws, but
I'm not<br>
>>>
objecting to it either.
However, if we don't
reach consensus for<br>
>>> adding
to the Bylaws, I
definitely think this is
worth further<br>
>>>
consideration in WS2 and
would support an
explicit reference using<br>
>>> this or
similar language and
timetable for doing so.<br>
>>><br>
>>>
Regards,<br>
>>> Keith<br>
>>><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>