Please Comment: Our Second Human Rights Impact Assessment on GAC Communique

[Pedro de Perdigão Lana]

+1 to James' comment - AI tools tend to miss a lot. It is good to use
them to improve our responses or make a first draft, but they are usually
not very good for working with things that are a bit too specific,
especially when the text would greatly benefit of some directed (instead of
broad scoped) research. They also are not very good at avoiding overly
appellative arguments that hinder the debate, such as "the assumption
ignores that delays in disclosure directly harm children and women". This
is simply not true.

To be more specific on content, imho, suggesting only *ex post facto *tools
to counterbalance risks is not a good practice. It reinforces the
possibility of approval of a new harmful policy with a declaration that
details and safeguards will be defined later. And those may end up not
being adequately implemented (or implemented at all). This has been widely
used as a strategy in various policy-making spaces.

Probably suggesting exactly what are the safeguards and how they could be
implemented would help to direct the debate to a more concrete and fruitful
path.

Cordially,

Em ter., 23 de set. de 2025 às 09:24, James Gannon <james at policywonk.xyz>
escreveu:

> Fully agree and I think that this topic is clearly one that we have
> advocated for consistently, now is not the time to derail that to be
> honest, it's a nuanced topic that I don't believe an AI driven response to
> should be relied upon to understand the history and detail here.
>
> --
>
> James
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 13:13 Johan Helsingius <
> 00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 23/09/2025 03:43, farzaneh badii wrote:
>> > I don’t think it’s accurate to say we’re “one-sided.” Our role isn’t to
>> > constantly compromise to appear “balanced.” Our role is to hold the
>> line
>> > on rights. That’s the contribution we make in this system.
>>
>> Indeed. GNSO as a whole should be balanced, but we help provide that
>> balance by defending human rights against other interests. In doing
>> that, we are pragmatic and try to find workable solutions.
>>
>> > I will make it clear in our HRIA that we are not against DNS abuse
>> > mitigation and debunk that myth.
>>
>> Great!
>>
>>         Julf
>>
> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
Advogado - OAB/PR 90.600 <https://www.nic.br/>,  Pesquisador (GEDAI/UFPR
<https://www.gedai.com.br/>)
Doutorando em Direito (UFPR), Mestre em Direito Empresarial (UCoimbra),
Coordenação/Diretoria/EC @ ISOC Brasil <https://www.isoc.org.br/>, NCUC
<https://www.ncuc.org> & NCSG
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN), CC Brasil
<https://br.creativecommons.net/>.
Essa mensagem é restrita ao remetente e destinatário(s). Se recebida por
engano, favor responder informando o erro.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250924/cf239f1d/attachment.htm>