[CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Jul 30 15:17:28 UTC 2015
It does not "create" new obligations Greg, I think it points out the
obligations that currently exist and attempts to improve ICANN's
accountability with respect to those human rights obligations. So
please do not construe my observation as a reason/request to remove the
human rights language. I just believe it should be clear what the words
mean. Slowing down this process would help everyone understand what the
fine points of these statements might mean. THat might slow down concensus.
SP
On 2015-07-30 11:11, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Stephanie's email raises a larger issue of whether the addition of
> this human rights language to ICANN's Core Values in it Bylaws (a)
> merely prevents ICANN from backsliding from its current treatment of
> human rights issues after the NTIA transition, or (b) creates new
> obligations for ICANN and changes the way ICANN approaches current
> obligations.
>
> This emphasizes that it clearly appears to be the latter. But we
> don't know, because we are in "Ready, Fire, Aim" mode, and the work to
> understand what we're doing will only come after its done.
>
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
> I hate to complicate this discussion, but I feel duty bound to
> point out that the first human right many people think of these
> days with respect to the domain name registration system is
> privacy. Freedom of expression and the openness of the Internet
> rolls more easily off the tongue....but if anyone says what about
> privacy, the WHOIS would have to be re-examined. This of course
> conflicts with the marching orders that the NTIA has had for ICANN
> since its inception.
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
> On 2015-07-30 5:59, Erika Mann 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
>> <mailto: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>
>> > <mailto: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>
>> >>> <mailto: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>
>> >>>> <mailto: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>
>> >>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <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 <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
> <mailto: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/d877c6f3/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list