[cc-humanrights] urgent - action required | agenda CCWP HR session & Presentations CCWP & HRIL session

Fri Feb 26 14:10:00 UTC 2016

Work Stream 3 of the Cross Community Working Party on Human Rights is
considering a human rights impact assessment (HRIA) as a useful method of
inquiry to arrive at a common understanding among all stakeholders on
ICANN's human rights impacts. A collective understanding on the relevance
of human rights in ICANN's operation can also inform the process of
drafting ICANN's human rights policy, enabling ICANN to operationalize and
report on its responsibility to respect human rights, consistent with the
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Throughout the entire
process, iterative engagement with ICANN management and board will be
necessary to reach a clear and reasonable expectation about ICANN's
responsibility in relation to all of ICANN's functional areas, as well as
the boundaries of its responsibility. The session will explore the six
potential phases of work toward ICANN's human rights impact assessment,
consisting of (1) planning and scoping; (2) baseline development;  (3)
impacts analysts; (4) impacts management; (5) human rights policy
development; and (6) monitoring and reporting.

On Friday, February 26, 2016, <vidushi at cis-india.org> wrote:

>
> In attempting to document cases and examples in which ICANN is potentially
> impacting human rights, SG2 has focused on mapping out foreseeable harms
> under various heads such as free speech harms, access to medicines, the
> right to participation, the right to be represented, the freedom of
> association etc. Through our research we look to point specifically to
> those instances in which ICANN policies have not considered implications,
> like the final report of the geographic regions review working group, which
> says that "The Community wants to minimize any changes to the current
> structure", but a closer reading and analysis shows that the current
> geographic structure can in fact, adversely impact the ability of Internet
> users and organisations in some countries to associate within their actual
> communities in a region. We will present an analysis based on 4 topics:
> 1.      The Final Issue Report on a PDP to review all RPMS in all gTLDs
> 2.      Geographic Regions Review Working Group
> 3.      Name Collisions Management Framework
> 4.      UDRP, including the new rules that have come into effect since
> July 31, 2015.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Vidushi Marda
>
> ----- On Feb 26, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm jmalcolm at eff.org
> <javascript:;> wrote:
>
> > On 23/02/2016 5:10 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> >> I would like to request the subgroups to write up a short summary of
> >> what they will present at our session in Marakesh.
> >>
> >> Intermediary Liability and its impact on human rights
> >> (Jeremy Malcolm)                10 minutes
> >>
> >> It would be great if everyone listed here could write a short
> >> paragraph about the content that they would like to present
> >> (preferably even with slides) so we can decide what and how we will
> >> present to the joint session with the  GAC.
> >
> > "Domain name registries and registrars are encountering increasing
> > pressure to effectively censor online speech, by means of suspending or
> > cancelling the domain names associated with the websites that host that
> > speech. This pressure can take the form of the threat of legal
> > liability, but - since registrars and registries seldom actually host
> > any infringing speech - more often there is soft pressure to comply with
> > rightsholder and law enforcement demands.  This can be even more
> > insidious, because their compliance with such soft pressure lacks the
> > checks and balances associated with the rule of law, such as a
> > court-ordered takedown.  The Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability
> > speak to this situation, providing best practice guidelines to
> > regulators, but also to intermediaries themselves about how to address
> > third-party demands for the restriction of online speech. This
> > presentation will critically examine how well existing industry
> > initiatives stack up against the recommendations of the Manila
> Principles."
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jeremy Malcolm
> > Senior Global Policy Analyst
> > Electronic Frontier Foundation
> > https://eff.org
> > jmalcolm at eff.org <javascript:;>
> >
> > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> >
> > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> >
> > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
> > PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> > OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
> >
> > Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> > https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-humanrights mailing list
> > cc-humanrights at icann.org <javascript:;>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
> _______________________________________________
> cc-humanrights mailing list
> cc-humanrights at icann.org <javascript:;>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
>

-- 
*Motoko Aizawa | Managing Director USA*
*M* +1 202 763 1503 *|**S* MotokoSkype11 *I* *W* www.ihrb.org *I T* *@
<haley.st.dennis at ihrb.org>**IHRB*
*Bogot*á *| **Brussel**s * *| **Geneva* *| **London* *|** Nairobi* *|
**Washington
D.C.* *|* *Yangon*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cc-humanrights/attachments/20160226/00345304/attachment.html>