<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
One of the issues I get stuck on when thinking about these issues is
the multiplicity of rights, all equal to each other and
inseparable. The absolute notion of freedom of speech runs into
barriers in such an environment. ICANN should be attentive to the
full scope of rights and needs to balance them in its policies.<br>
<br>
I do am not saying I know where the right balance point is on this
issue, but I believe that other rights can be asserted in the
assignment of names that may press on the absolute nature of free
speech. And I believe that these rights need to be properly
balanced. In do not know the proper balance in this area though I
am pretty sure the GAC is pushing a bit too hard. But I also think
the solution may lie somewhere between the extremes.<br>
<br>
One of the issues we, ICANN &c., keep running into, is that
people are champions for a diverse set of one one right above the
others. That is why I think there is a desperate need at ICANN for
a group that is able to do the deep thinking and advising that needs
to be done on human rights issues. That is one of the reasons I have
been working with others on Roy's idea for a Human Rights Advisory
Committee (HRAC), similar to the SSAC (stability and security
advisory committee). I have attached the current writeup for the
idea. I am hoping that we can discuss this the Human rights session
to be held on Wednesday of ICANN week. I have also atttached a copy
of the flyer for that event.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08-Oct-14 19:00, Milton L Mueller
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:417fb8aaf3e5486ebbd7a1e4530c41f9@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Wolfgang:
A MS process _creates_ "fighting parties" by telling anyone and everyone that they can have legally enforceable rights over common property (words, names) simply by asserting them in a policy process.
Sam provides a perfect example of this. A health advocacy group thinks it should be able to control how we use the word "health" or "mentalhealth" in the domain name space, specifically in order to preclude someone from using it in a way they don't like. The conflicts of interest created by such a policy are endless, literally endless. Everyone in the world would be encouraged to think that they have a property right or some other kind of special claim on words that are important or meaningful to them. Add different languages to this and the possibilities for conflict are mind-boggling.
--MM
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>] On Behalf
Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 4:07 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] AW: [NCSG-Discuss] AW: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC
proposal to ban top level domains that use a geographic word unless
permission granted from govt (next rounds of gtlds)
Wolfgang:
What is the way out? In my eyes the Dilemma offers an opportunity to start a
truly bottom up and open multistakeholder RFC-like process to find rough
Consensus on the basis of "running code" (as the guidebook, some GAC
advices and the experiences/contracts with the already existing GEO-TLDs,
from .cat to .Berlin and .london). I do not see any alternative to such a
bottom up collaborative approach. Otherwise we end up in a GEO-TLD-War
Milton:
The alternative is to do nothing. Which is better. If real laws apply, apply
them to what happens, using normal due process and limited jurisdictions.
No need for ICANN to legislate expression on a global level. And please do
not tell me that speech restrictions are fine if they are done by a
multistakeholder organization. As I have frequently said, I don'give a damn if
the person censoring me is Vladimir Putin or a multistakeholder working
group led by Wolfgang, it's still censorship.
Wolfgang:
Doing nothing will work as long as all parties involved more or less accept the
Situation, even if it is unsatisfactory for them. But there are options that one
party does not accept the Status quo and will start the above mentioned
GEO-TLD-War. This can lead to collatoral damages with difficult to calculate
consequences. To avoid this a proactive policy, which would include bottom
up PDPs and early Engagement of all affected stakeholders seems to me an
approach which is based both on experience and wisdom. Cinflict prevention
is always better that the handling of a conflict if the conflicth has already
created "fighting parties". And I can not see that a multistakeholder
arrangement, which lead to rough consensus based on the Sao Paulo
Principles - which include human rights and freedom of expression - can be
labeled as "censorship".
w
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>