[CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Jul 30 16:23:01 UTC 2015


Carlos,

This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.  This refers to
internationally recognized fundamental human rights, and "free flow of
information" isn't one.  It may be a laudable goal, but it is simply not on
the UN list of "fundamental human right."

Greg

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg at isoc-cr.org>
wrote:

> Dear Steve,
>
> Maybe Tunis agenda or anything related to the information society we live
> in? In any case, if we can go at least a little step further than the
> strict language of 1st anmendemnt, so it sounds more modern and
> international would be a great  step forward.
>
> Best
>
> Carlos Raúl
> On Jul 30, 2015 10:00 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> wrote:
>
>>  The compromise text says "fundamental human rights of the exercise of
>> free expression and the free flow of information”.
>>
>>  But I do not find “free flow if information” on the UN list of
>> fundamental human rights.   Where is that right stated as fundamental?
>>
>>
>>
>>   From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>> Greg Shatan
>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM
>> To: Stephanie Perrin
>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org"
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements
>>
>>   Nobody has to publish their confidential information to the world in
>> order to register a domain name.  Privacy/proxy services are readily
>> available and there is no formal proposal to take that away from anyone.  I
>> agree we can and should take this debate elsewhere, since it is a nuanced
>> one, and there has been much misinformation spread on the topic.
>>
>>  However, if adding the proposed language to the Bylaws changes how
>> ICANN should "determine where the human rights obligations fall" in the
>> policy-making process relating to this issue, then this is a very
>> significant change.
>>
>>  Greg
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> No actually I am referring to scammers, spammers, doxxers, and really
>>> irritating (but not criminal) commercial elements who mine the WHOIS
>>> database to pursue innocent folks who have to publish their confidential
>>> information to the world in order to register a domain name.
>>> A public directory is not the way to control lawbreakers who hide behind
>>> proxy services, as has been amply debated in the recent PPSAI public
>>> comments period.
>>> Anyway lets take this debate elsewhere as it does not contribute much to
>>> the topic.  Except, I would point out, that the risk balance between the
>>> harm done by public disclosure through WHOIS has changed in the 17 years
>>> that the Internet has been growing up, and it is time to revisit who is at
>>> risk, and determine where the human rights obligations fall.  As you can
>>> tell, I believe privacy and the people who need it are more at risk today
>>> than law enforcement operations (who can find the registrars and the ISPs,
>>> and request the data they need there, in addition to more relevant info
>>> such as payment details). Disclosure of address and phone numbers is
>>> permanent and irrevocable thanks to value added services that have grown up
>>> to mine the WHOIS data.
>>> kind regards,
>>> Stephanie
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2015-07-30 11:18, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>>
>>>  Stephanie,
>>>
>>>  Are you referring to the criminal element who knows how to use WHOIS
>>> to hide themselves?  That is certainly a huge problem and not limited to
>>> violations of criminal law -- it is also a huge problem with regard to
>>> lawbreakers whose actions are not criminal in nature.
>>>
>>>  Greg
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Totally agree Nigel, but providing access to law enforcement is not the
>>>> same as publishing to the world, and the criminal element who know how to
>>>> use WHOIS.  At the moment, options for nuanced disclosure are limited.
>>>> SP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-07-30 11:00, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole debate about the right to private and family life is more
>>>>> nuanced.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without turning this list into a discussion on how respect for human
>>>>> rights is guaranteed on this contintent, it's worth pointing out that
>>>>> respecting the right of privacy does NOT mean closing off domain
>>>>> registration data to law enforcment. Quite the opposite.
>>>>>
>>>>> The privacy right is a qualified right -- so it CAN be interfered with
>>>>>
>>>>> - lawfully, when necessary in a democratic society; so long as it is
>>>>> - proportionate.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I don't think that conflicts with anybody's 'marching orders'.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30/07/15 15:53, Stephanie Perrin 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 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
>>>>>>>     >>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/ec6d3e5f/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list