[cc-humanrights] last call - infographic ICANN & Human Rights

Tue Jun 14 08:27:10 UTC 2016

Thanks Marilia,

This is great, a quick repsonse inline:

On 06/10/2016 04:11 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Hi Niels and all, 
> 
> Congratulations to Niels and the team working on the visualisation. It
> is a great work and I find the infographic extremely informative. I have
> just a few observations:
> 
> - The line that goes from the UDHR to second generation and then to
> particular instruments is not clear, because some of the instruments,
> like the ICCPR are part of the first generation of HR, while the ICESCR
> is indeed document that consolidates second generation rights. We need a
> different breakout if we want to speak of the generations. 

This is a big mistake of mine. Am very happy you caught it.

Perhaps we could do this differently, because I am not sure how useful
it is to differentiate between different generations of rights.

> - On the human rights principles section, maybe it would be useful to
> mention the distinction from the responsibility to protect and respect,
> which is something mentioned in several occasions in our discussions in
> ICANN. 

Based on this and the previous remark I made a quick sketch, let me know
what you think (attached)

> - Glossary: a) In INGOs there is a space missing and a typo in the word
> organisation. 

Giulia (cc), can you take this up?

> b) Add " DANE"  to the glossary. 

DANE: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities

> c) Put the glossary in 
> alphabetic order.

Will do

> - FoE stream: --> new gTLD program --> new gTLD subsequent round (WG).
> The WG is looking at a wide scope of issues, not only FoE and the title
> of the WG (new gTLD subsequent round) in column 3 is not explanatory of
> any particular FoE issue. 

Let's change 'New gTLD programme' (in all instances) into 'New gTLD
subsequent procedures WG', and then drop the latter from the third column.

> - A suggestion came from CoE in the last ICANN meeting that we should
> rearrange the order in which we list the rights, maybe mirroring the
> order that they appear in the UDHR. I think it is a valuable suggestion.
> In any case, I would not start the list with due process, maybe it is
> good to start with a human right that is more widely " accepted" and
> understood in the ICANN space. 

OK, let's do the order of the second column like this:

Right to Privacy (add: Right to)
Right to Freedom of Association (add: Right to)
Economic, social and cultural rights
Right to Freedom of expession (add: Right to)
Right to Security
Participation, includion, equality and non-discrimination
Due process

> - Some of the ICANN policies of processes are actually active WGs. When
> this is the case, it would be good to indicate that clearly ex: new gTLD
> subsequent procedures WG, Rights protection mechanisms in all gTLDs WG,
> etc...

Agreed, let's add WG to these specific ones:

Rights Protection Mechanism WG
New gTLD subsequent procedures WG

> 
> Reacting to Kathy's suggestion, I believe we should strictly follow the
> name of the policy or WG we are talking about. So, yes, if they have
> "Review"  in the title, I would retain this word. But I would not add
> words like "balanced" if they are not in the official title. 
> 

I hope it adresses Kathy's concern if we add WG, so that it is clear we
use the official terms.

I do share Kathy's concern about the naming of some WGs, but I don;t
think that is something we should address in this graph.

We can change:

Curative Rights protection for IGOs / INGOs

into:

Review of curative rights protections in IGO/INGOs in gTLDs

> Once again, great job and looking forward to the discussion on the
> visualisation in Helsinki!
> 

Thanks again,

Niels

> Best wishes,
> Marilia
> 
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Niels and All,
> 
>     The Rights Protection Mechanism listing seem a little more directive
>     than the other phrases -- and could be read to urge specific
>     positions rather than just listing the ICANN proceedings that are
>     looking at the issues.  Can we be a bit more neutral in our
>     phrasing? I would recommend:
> 
>     - Review of appropriate protections for IGOs/INGOs in gTLDs
> 
>     - Review of balanced curative rights protections in IGO/INGOs in gTLDs
> 
>     - Review of all rights protection mechanisms currently in gTLDs
> 
>     - Review of balanced rights protection mechanisms for future new
>     gTLD rounds
> 
>     This will avoid misinterpretation... tx you!
>     Best regards, Kathy
> 
>     On 6/7/2016 9:49 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>     Dear all,
>>
>>     I have integrated your comments and suggestions as well as I could and I
>>     think we have a very nice info-graphic right now that we can present in
>>     Helsinki.
>>
>>     So I would like to do a last call to see whether you all can live with this.
>>
>>     Of course this will remain a working document, but it would be great if
>>     we can show this in Helsinki as work of the CCWP HR.
>>
>>     Looking forward to hear your comments, questions and/or suggestions.
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Niels
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     cc-humanrights mailing list
>>     cc-humanrights at icann.org <mailto:cc-humanrights at icann.org>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     cc-humanrights mailing list
>     cc-humanrights at icann.org <mailto:cc-humanrights at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cc-humanrights mailing list
> cc-humanrights at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: draft.png
Type: image/png
Size: 55558 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cc-humanrights/attachments/20160614/acf9c97b/draft-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cc-humanrights/attachments/20160614/acf9c97b/signature-0001.asc>