[CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Jul 30 16:29:54 UTC 2015
As Carlos has said, the Tunis agenda attempted to
clarify...Unfortunately the 1948 text was not explicit, but you will
find it implicit in several sections, notably 19 and 27 (1). The UN
Guidelines on TBDF of 1990 attempted to clarify expectations, largely in
the context of data protection
http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3ddcafaac.pdf. As you can see from the
text here, the duty to protect the data subject is quite explicit. The
free flow of data is largely assumed, but expressed in 9. You may also
want to check out the last paragraph, when thinking about ICANN
accountability.
I think this is a digression from your important work, folks.
cheers SP
On 2015-07-30 12:16, Carlos Raul Gutierrez 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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>>
>> > <mailto: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>>
>> >>> <mailto: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
> <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/20150730/9fcab9ba/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list