[cc-humanrights] Fwd: ICANN and human rights followup to meeting in LA

Tue Dec 2 15:53:33 UTC 2014

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

<< snip >>
>>> On Dec 2, 2014, at 1:29 AM, joy <joy at apc.org
>>> <mailto:joy at apc.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Am a bit surprised by this Bill. There is not a doubt that
>>>> ICANN impacts freedom of expression and privacy, right?!
>>> Neils: I am afraid Bill is correct and in my view we have a
>>> severe clash of understanding in ICANN - as human rights
>>> advocates, you and I both know that 'human rights' includes FX
>>> and privacy. But in ICANN, dominated as it is by US folks, they
>>> have no clue what 'human rights' are: honestly. They might have
>>> a vague idea what 'civil rights' are, but in my experience most
>>> are quite ignorant about 'human rights' and think these are to
>>> do with poverty and clean water or social security - so there
>>> is sometimes a kind of intellectual allergic reaction or a more
>>> mild sense of being non-plussed about how human rights are
>>> relevant. This seems to also attach to the politics of the
>>> issue as well.
>> 
>> Err…if I may offer two small amendments.  I’d say "dominated as
>> it is by business and technical folks.”  I at least have no
>> evidence that business and technicalfolks with passport x are
>> systematically less aware than business and technicalfolks with
>> passport y.  And I think it’s possible people have can have a
>> baseline understanding and appreciation of human rights but
>> simply have never heard or engaged the case that that decisions
>> about name collisions, cc redelegations, IRTP, or the zillion
>> other issues dealt with in ICANN can clearly and negatively
>> impact rights (other than trademark).  The burden there is on us
>> as much as it is on them.  Like many siloed groups and
>> subgroupings we talk among ourselves and reinforce each others'
>> views and then conclude that what we think should be obvious to
>> others who work in completely different spaces.  Expecting that
>> everyone has read the 40 page COE paper (on which some people
>> within e.g. civil society disagree in parts), had a eureka 
>> moment, and is ready to get started on a fix is unrealistic.
>> 

OK point taken. But this is also why we agreed on a webinar, a summary
paper and a follow-up paper (as Joy mentioned) which takes the
discussion further.

So I agree with a soft approach, more education on rights and making
the issue understandable.

>> Aside from lining up the room (really urgent), I’d suggest the
>> first order of business ought to be to prepare a FAQ.  Two pages
>> of concise problem statements with illustrative examples of
>> policies and practices that raise HR concerns and ends with a few
>> options for tackling the problem, ranging from lowest impact in
>> terms of institutionalization to more demanding and systematic.
>> Something like this we could circulate in a number of ways (e.g.
>>  SOACSGC chairs could be asked to share with their respective
>> tribes) to raise awareness and generate interest in a meeting to
>> discuss.
>> 
>> It’d be important for the FAQ to make clear what we are and are
>> not focusing on.  In this regard, at the risk of sounding like an
>> Anglo-Saxon, I would reiterate the view I and some others stated
>> in LA: we start with civil and political rights, particularly FoE
>> and privacy, and leave aside economic and social rights and 3rd
>> generation rights (peace, development) etc at least initially or
>> we end up with the discussion turning into an another free range
>>  blob and debating .health again without getting anywhere.   We
>> don’t have to say the others are out of bounds or can’t be
>> returned to later if consensus takes us there, but start with the
>> low hanging fruit on which people can more readily see the case.
>> 

Agreed. Marilia is already working on a short paper, with the help of
Stephanie I think.

>>>> 
>>>>>>> A lot of the community is still nowhere near being in
>>>>>>> the tent. I had two board members pull me aside in LA
>>>>>>> to say WTF is this human rights thing who are these
>>>>>>> people this could be a disaster, and I heard various
>>>>>>> other comments from people in governments and the
>>>>>>> community that were at a minimum, skeptical and
>>>>>>> reserved.
>>>> 
>>>> But isn't that exactly a reason to have that discussion in a
>>>> workshop instead of in backchannels?
>>> JL: yes, but it needs to come back to some simple concepts to
>>> help build understanding - the Europeans, Canadians, South
>>> African, Kenyan, Pakistan among others, - will understand - but
>>> my guess is that many from the US will not.
>> 
>> I was not arguing against having a workshop, I advocated it in
>> LA.
>> 

OK, so if you all think that 'Human right and ICANN - continuing the
conversation' is a better title, that's OK with me. We already agreed
on the text, so let's make sure we register the room and we don't end
up in the same logistics nightmare as last time.

Joy, I am also talking with Monika Zalnieriute about a possible
follow-up paper. So perhaps we can schedule a call for next week to
see which topics we could cover and what the timeline would be?

Best,

Niels

>> 
>> *********************************************** William J. Drake 
>> International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation
>> Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair,
>> Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>> <http://www.ncuc.org/> william.drake at uzh.ch
>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists), www.williamdrake.org
>> <http://www.williamdrake.org/> 
>> ***********************************************
>> 
> 
> *********************************************** William J. Drake 
> International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division,
> IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users
> Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org> 
> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists), 
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org> 
> ***********************************************
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUfeDVAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpJ+MH/1NRmCcCcyzgqwS5iXVae+eI
DwtI8TptogApi7Gk641rk4oSBtYjpkHvxRRs8hHp1fRZQrk4/L1b/lqepoRvx6CX
rDSE19G4BZbnVdWfi9OtYZBOa/7r2Uz1wS7xgX+9ZMiObS+a1TFs+e+QYAPnwFL8
vEcAIEPidakTxVz33txk9RMS7liZDf6DYFjny++kJ5wxqMpiyzpHCLua+lAz7WdP
v/0VSqkoSLl9Cv+PBEhmG6t4nrfCvpTvh+FubsNfVfjXUv5pwrInZ0QAlVq+VEbO
notXhvN4uHW0kH/dfISoBXnNLJ0o4H2ngeMul8p4dyM1w0u93SfRjdfEemZ6jSU=
=yqoO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----