[Ws2-hr] When should ICANN uphold human rights?
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Sun Sep 4 20:23:54 UTC 2016
Indeed. 😀
--
Paul Rosenzweig
Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 04 September 2016, 04:21PM -04:00 from farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com :
>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 at 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 redbranchconsulting.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 ] 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/20160904/726d597d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-hr
mailing list