[CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Jul 30 16:24:23 UTC 2015
Stop the presses. I agree with Dr. Lisse.
(Beelze)Greg
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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/20150730/6c4d3565/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list