[CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Off the top of my head, I think a first thing we would have to do would
be to start understanding the impact, if any, of ICANN operations and
policies on human rights.  Some of this work is already starting in the
human rights working party (HRWP), though that is a rather informal
beginning.  I would also think that some part of the staff would need to
start taking these issues into consideration.  I do not think that it
would cause any serious changes in the near future but would make us
more aware as time went on, and would give us a basis for discussion
both in the HRWP and in the ACSO and Board.

In terms of the specific things it might limt us from, and this would
require some analysis on specifc events, might be creating any kinds of
policies or operations that forced  limitation of content, beyond the
limitations required by law for incitement, on domain named sites.  It
would in fact strengthen our postion in that respect.

Most important though, it would cover a hole left by the loss of the
NTIA backstop, on any issue concerning freedom of expression, free flow
of information or openness of the Internet.

thanks
avri

On 30-Jul-15 11:07, Drazek, Keith wrote:
> Hi Chris, 
>
> I'll have to defer to others with more expertise on this one.  It's a
> good question that should be addressed. 
>
> Best, 
> Keith
>
> On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au
> <mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>> wrote:
>
>> Keith,
>>
>> This looks interesting. Could we think of an example of something
>> concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment? Or
>> something it would not be able to do? 
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:16 , Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com
>>> <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Avri,
>>>
>>> In order to tie your suggestion directly to the language in
>>> Secretary Strickling's April 2014 written congressional testimony
>>> (included in a prior email) and to reduce concerns about scope
>>> creep, would language along these lines be acceptable to you?
>>>
>>>> "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed
>>>> to respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free
>>>> expression and the free flow of information."
>>>
>>> Speaking personally, I could probably support this formulation. To
>>> be clear, I have not discussed this with the RySG, but it's
>>> consistent with the requirements outlined by NTIA so I think it's
>>> certainly worth considering.
>>>
>>> I'm not advocating including this in the Bylaws, but I'm not
>>> objecting to it either. However, if we don't reach consensus for
>>> adding to the Bylaws, I definitely think this is worth further
>>> consideration in WS2 and would support an explicit reference using
>>> this or similar language and timetable for doing so.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>> On Jul 30, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Within its mission, ICANN will be committed to respect fundamental
>>>>  human rights in its operationsespecially with regard to the exercise
>>>>  of free expression or the free flow of information.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus