[Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?

Sun Sep 4 20:21:56 UTC 2016

This is the ws2 on human rights!

On 4 Sep 2016 10:15 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

Dear Mr.Rosenzweig,
You referred to my name and obliged me to respond to you

I am sorry to hear such language being used by you.

I know you very well and aware that whatever I say you immediately and
categorically disagree with it.

You have done it during CCWG WS1.

However, I do not mind if you take a hostile position against me.

Having said that , this subgroup  is not mandated  propose  to change  to
the Bylaws, this Groups is merely responsible for accountability of SOs/ACs
.

You can raise your questions in the Human Rights sub group.

I disagree that this group dealing with accountabilities of SOs/ ACs gets
involved in the issue of " Framework for  Interpretation of  Human Rights”

Redards

Arasteh

2016-09-04 21:43 GMT+02:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@
redbranchconsulting.com>:

> I accept Tijani’s amendment.  My use of “only” was overstated – there will
> be many subsidiary and subsequent questions.  I think, however, that this
> list identifies the basic two-part outline of the inquiry and that
> Farzaneh’s questions both are important subsidiary questions to the general
> question B) about “when.”
>
>
>
> As for Kavous’s suggestion that in discussion these the group is seeking
> to “modify the Bylaws”  which is outside its Terms of Reference that’s just
> silly.  This is a WG to talk about implementation of the new bylaw.  I
> imagine, however, that if the group thinks a bylaw modification is
> necessary (unlikely, but plausible, I suppose) it can make that suggestion
> and then the CCWG can agree or not, and propose to the Board who can,
> likewise, agree or not and seek the agreement of the EC, or not.  It’s a
> standard tactic to try to limit discussion by saying something is out of
> bounds – especially at the outset.
>
>
>
> Another such tactic is to say that a question is not understood – when, of
> course, it is readily understandabe.  For example, in response to
> Farzaneh’s original questions I would support giving consideration to HR
> generally in the formulation of contracts with registrars and registries
> (IF we agree on what those HR are) but I would be reluctant to have ICANN
> force enforcement.
>
>
>
> I say this not to discuss the specifics, but simply to make clear that
> Farzaneh’s questions are perfectly understandable and clearly formulated.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>
> My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
>
>
>
> *From:* Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn]
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 4, 2016 2:13 PM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> *Cc:* farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>; Kavouss Arasteh <
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; ws2-hr at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I agree with Paul that among the main questions for us to come up with a
> Frame of Interpretation of the Human Rights in the ICANN mission would be:
>
>    -        What substance we see in the phrase human rights inside ICANN
>    Mission?
>    -        When, if ever, ICANN should give that substance (whatever it
>    may be) effect?
>
>  I can’t say they are the only meaningful questions since there will be
> subsequent questions. But let’s start with the first question: I think that
> to address it, we may begin by giving practical easy cases.
>
> The protection of the registrant data is one of the most obvious case of
> human right that falls in the ICANN mission. This may also affect the ICANN
> contract with registries/registrars
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>
> Executive Director
>
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>
> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>
>             +216 52 385 114
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>
>
>
>
>
> Le 4 sept. 2016 à 18:24, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchcons
> ulting.com> a écrit :
>
>
>
> Dear Farzaneh
>
>
>
> Of course your questions are meaningful.  Indeed, the ONLY two meaningful
> questions in this discussion are a) what substance we see in the phrase
> human rights? And b) When, if ever, ICANN should give that substance
> (whatever it may be) effect?
>
>
>
> Your questions clearly go to the later of these two issues.  Members of
> the group may disagree on the answers we reach, but you’re asking questions
> that have real meaning – whatever anyone may say to the contrary.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>
> My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org
> <ws2-hr-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *farzaneh badii
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 4, 2016 11:56 AM
> *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* ws2-hr at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?
>
>
>
> Calling something "not meaningful" is very easy. But it does not devalue
> its merits, fortunately.  Please provide a rationale for why the questions
> are not meaningful. I don't have to consult with the co-chairs to discuss
> the questions here. If the group feels that it is unnecessary to discuss
> these questions they can simply not respond, if they feel we should
> re-formulate them, then we can.
>
>
>
> The questions are to clarify what we mean by ICANN should not become a
> content regulator. The discussions that can arise responding to the
> question and sub-questions which I have posted can lead us towards a more
> tangible understanding of what we mean when we say ICANN should not become
> a content regulator and should not go out of its scope and mission when
> upholding human rights.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
>
> On 4 September 2016 at 17:34, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I do not understand the meaning and purpose of these questions.
>
> Perhaps the author of the questions could consult other two co chairs and
> come up with meaningfull text.
>
> We can not send out these questions at all
>
> Reagrds
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> 2016-09-04 14:25 GMT+02:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Sorry for sending out the questions late. I wanted to provide a gist of
> what we discussed during our call and then provide the questions but
> unfortunately, we still do not have the recording. Below are some questions
> for the group to discuss:
>
>
>
>
>
> Considering ICANN's scope and mission, when should ICANN uphold human
> rights?
>
>
>
> - In its consideration to enter into contracts with registries and
> registrars? (for example, when they are considering a new gTLD application)
>
>
>
> - During the contractual relationship with the registries and the
> registrars by obligating the registries and registrars to enforce human
> rights?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-hr mailing list
> Ws2-hr at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Farzaneh
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-hr mailing list
> Ws2-hr at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20160904/c0a51a5a/attachment-0001.html>