<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Keith</div><div>Your proposal is incomplete , narrow and does not cover other rights that I did mentioned in my previous mail</div><div>I oppose to its <a href="http://inclusion.it">inclusion.it</a> was copied from one single entity which is not stemmed from public discussion</div><div>I strongly asked ch chairs not to include that</div><div>I made a proposal which neutral, high level and is nit based on rush conclusions</div><div>Kavouss</div><div> </div><div> <br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 31 Jul 2015, at 03:03, Drazek, Keith <<a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<div>For the record, my suggested language was taken directly from NTIA's April 2014 written congressional testimony (as I'd quoted in another email thread a day or so ago). I was simply trying to help those who feel strongly about including a reference to
human rights to place it in the context of NTIA's own statements and expectations, and to define it in a way that might receive support from others who are legitimately concerned about mission creep at ICANN. I've said I don't have strong feelings one way
or the other about addressing this issue in WS1, but fully support further work in WS2.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Keith <br>
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
On Jul 30, 2015, at 5:10 PM, Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Thanks Robin. I searched the UNDHR for the word “flow” so that’s why I missed it.</div>
<div>
<div id="MAC_OUTLOOK_SIGNATURE"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<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>Robin Gross<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 12:49 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Carlos Raul Gutierrez<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>Steve DelBianco, <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">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 style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>Actually, Keith's proposed wording is very close to the international standard on this point. UNDHR Article 19 guarantees "the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any medium and regardless of frontiers" which is another way
of saying "free flow of information". Personally, I would be fine with replacing "free flow of info" with the exact language in article 19 just quoted, but I think Keith's proposed text of "free flow of information" is a much more succinct way of saying the
same thing.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Robin</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Jul 30, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<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 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>
</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 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 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 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 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 href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a 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 href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank">ceo@auda.org.au</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank">ceo@auda.org.au</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank">ceo@auda.org.au</a> <mailto:<a 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 href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com" target="_blank">kdrazek@verisign.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com" target="_blank">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>><br>
>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com" target="_blank">kdrazek@verisign.com</a> <mailto:<a 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 href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a 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>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br>
<span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>