[CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements

[Erika Mann]

I'm very mindful Kavouss, my comment related to possible problems evolving
in the future, it was not meant as a judgement of the past. But I
understand your concern, well taken.
Thanks, Erika

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues
> Dear Avri
> The string that you gave referred to was subject to severe objections by
> GAC and several statements by other countries.
> Pls do not the very fundamental issue of Human Rights  with a specific and
> sensitive string.
> We should be mindful not to provoke strong reaction from various people.
> Please read decisions of ICANN and statements of countries in this regard.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:59, Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com> wrote:
>
> In addition to Avri's points, such a provision could help as well to
> ensure that future business models that relate to more sensitive strings
> (.gay for example) will continue to be treated as any other string.
>
> Erika
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150730/5fb7db17/attachment.html>