[PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to “Enhancing ICANN’s Accountability”-process.
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak
Fri Jun 6 13:33:33 EEST 2014
hello everyone,
the comment was submitted and received the automatic confirmation ( that
is new)
Rafik
2014-06-06 18:28 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
> hi,
>
> Just for the record, I support this statement.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 06-Jun-14 11:07, Maria Farrell wrote:
> > And just to confirm that the final version of the statement - which we
> > will submit today - is the current draft on Google drive, which I also
> > copy below for the record.
> >
> > All the best, Maria
> >
> > Comments of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on ?Enhancing
> > ICANN?s Accountability?
> >
> >
> > This comment, initially drafted by ARTICLE 19, is supported by and
> > submitted on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). NCSG
> > is the voice of civil society and nonprofit organizations in ICANN?s
> > domain name policy making organ, the Generic Names Supporting
> > Organization. It is composed of two constituencies, the Noncommercial
> > Users Constituency (http://ncuc.org) <about:blank>and the Not-for-Profit
> > Operational Concerns Constituency (http://www.npoc.org) <about:blank>,
> > as well as a number of unaffiliated individuals. The NCUC and NPOC, both
> > constituencies under the ?NCSG umbrella?, consists of civil society
> > members from 81 different countries, including organizations and
> > individuals.
> >
> >
> > The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to discuss the ways in which ICANN?s
> > accountability to the broader community should be enhanced. In this
> > submission, we respond more specifically to the questions asked by ICANN
> > as part of the present consultation process. Our responses are guided,
> > among other things, by our longstanding expertise in Internet governance
> > and human rights work.
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > What issues does the community identify as being core to
> > strengthening ICANN?s overall accountability in the absence of its
> > historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government?
> >
> >
> > ICANN is in many ways a unique organisation due to its
> > ?multi-stakeholder? make-up. For this reason, traditional accountability
> > mechanisms for international organisations, private companies or public
> > bodies are ill-suited or, at any rate, extremely difficult to implement.
> > The AOC bottom-up mechanisms are an essential part of accountability at
> > ICANN, but they are far from sufficient to provide strong
> > accountability. Indeed, the lack of strong accountability mechanisms is
> > a well-known shortfall within ICANN.
> >
> >
> > Although efforts have been made to improve the organisation?s
> > transparency and accountability over the years, this does not go far
> > enough. In our view, ICANN must be made subject to external &
> > independent oversight mechanisms in order to ensure meaningful
> > accountability of its decisions. We suggest that this could be achieved
> > by the creation of a new external, multistakeholder and independent body
> > that would review the Board?s decisions & actions and respond to appeals
> > subject to rules on standing and applicable grounds for review to be
> > defined in the upcoming process. One important feature of such body
> > would be that at a minimum no ICANN Board member or staff should be able
> > to sit on it, in order to safeguard its independence. Whether that body
> > should also include elected members of any of its Advisory Committees or
> > Supporting Organizations should be the subject of further discussion.
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > What should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of
> > accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the
> > consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the
> > community? Is there anything that should be added to the Working
> > Group?s mandate?
> >
> >
> > Accountability is not simply a notion. It is a fundamental principle of
> > governance that ensures that those who make decisions or take action are
> > answerable for them. Transparency should be at the heart of any
> > accountability process. At the same time, for accountability to be
> > meaningful, anyone affected by those decisions or actions must be able
> > to challenge them, i.e. have a remedy, subject to rules on standing and
> > applicable grounds for review to be defined during the upcoming process.
> > Equally, such remedy must be accompanied by proportionate sanctions or
> > damages where appropriate. Accountability also requires clear rules,
> > transparent decision-making processes, the right to a remedy and appeals
> > processes which are independent from the initial decision-maker.
> >
> >
> > Lack of accountability breeds mistrust and inefficiency. If ICANN fails
> > to demonstrate its commitment to meaningful accountability, it may
> > ultimately lessen the weight of the Board?s decisions vis-a-vis ICANN?s
> > constituents, customers and other stakeholders when it makes
> > controversial decisions. By contrast, the very existence of stronger
> > accountability mechanisms is more likely to lead to better
> > decision-making and therefore greater credibility and legitimacy of the
> > organisation as a whole.
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values expressed therein
> > need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN?s
> > accountability and so, how? How does the Affirmation of Commitments
> > need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN's
> > accountability, and who should take part in this AoC?
> >
> >
> > We believe that several values expressed in the Affirmation of
> > Commitments (AOC) should be maintained and supported. In particular, we
> > support the commitments to: (a) preserve the security, stability and
> > resiliency of the DNS; (b) promote competition, consumer trust, and
> > consumer choice in the DNS marketplace; and (c) facilitate international
> > participation in DNS technical coordination.
> >
> >
> > At the same time, we believe that the AOC should be amended to ensure
> > that ICANN?s decisions are fully consistent with human rights standards.
> > In this regard, ICANN should guarantee that decisions related to the
> > global technical coordination of the DNS are made in a transparent and
> > accountable manner and crucially, ?for the protection and advancement of
> > human rights and Internet freedoms? rather than ?in the public
> > interest?, which is a standard that lacks sufficient specificity in this
> > context.
> >
> >
> > Other aspects of the By-Laws could be amended to reflect the need for
> > the organisation to evolve and provide stronger accountability
> > mechanisms to the wider community. For instance, the By-Laws should be
> > amended to prohibit ICANN from engaging in regulation of content or
> > conduct in violation of the rights to freedom of expression or privacy.
> > The AOC would need to review adherence to this prohibition.
> >
> >
> > Finally, we reiterate that whilst the AOC constitutes an important check
> > on ICANN?s decisions and actions, it is insufficient to provide the kind
> > of external accountability that the organisation sorely needs.
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > What are the means by which the Community is assured that ICANN is
> > meeting its accountability commitments?
> >
> >
> > To begin with, it is vital that the consultation process on ICANN?s
> > accountability is conducted in a transparent & inclusive manner in order
> > to give credibility to ICANN?s commitments. Secondly, the process
> > whereby reform proposals are accepted must be both clear and ensure
> > meaningful participation of all stakeholders concerned. Thirdly, as
> > noted above, in order to achieve true accountability, ICANN must accept
> > some form of external & independent check on its actions, including the
> > Board. Consultative processes on accountability should extend beyond
> > the ICANN community and into the broader Internet governance ecosystem.
> >
> >
> > In addition, existing accountability & transparency processes must be
> > strengthened on several levels. We identify below a number of ways in
> > which this could be achieved:
> >
> >
> > Transparency of Board decision-making processes
> >
> > Accountability & Transparency Review Team 1 & 2 have both made a series
> > of recommendations, some of which have not been implemented yet,
> including:
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > The Board?s decision should be both publicised and duly reasoned.
> > Where decisions are not unanimous, the minority opinions should be
> > documented and attributed.
> >
> > *
> >
> > The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents,
> > Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN
> > documents to create a single published redaction policy. Equally, a
> > process should be put in place to regularly evaluate redacted
> > material to determine if redactions are still required and if not,
> > ensure that redactions are removed.
> >
> > *
> >
> > The Board should ensure the use of Transparency Metrics and
> Reporting.
> >
> >
> > We believe that these and other recommendations of the ATRT 1 & 2 teams
> > are vitally important and should be duly implemented. If the Board
> > rejects or fails to implement particular recommendations, it should be
> > required to give reasons for its decision or inaction.
> >
> >
> > Strengthening the role and powers of the Ombudsman
> >
> > At present, the ombudsman?s jurisdiction is confined to complaints
> > about unfair treatment by ICANN, decisions, actions or inactions of
> > ICANN's supporting organisations as well as decisions, actions, or
> > inactions by the Board of Directors that may be inconsistent with the
> > Articles of Incorporation or the Bylaws. The Ombudsman has investigative
> > powers but can only use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to
> > resolve complaints. It cannot reverse a decision of the Board, for
> > instance, but may make a recommendation to the Board where appropriate.
> > The Ombudsman's jurisdiction and powers are therefore extremely limited.
> > In particular, the Ombudsman does not have the power to make, change or
> > set aside a policy, administrative or Board decision, act, or omission.
> >
> >
> > In order to strengthen the powers of the Ombudsman, consideration should
> > be given to granting it powers to set Board?s decisions or policies
> > aside. At the same time, if an external oversight body with more
> > significant powers is put in place (e.g. with powers to set Board?s
> > decisions aside), the question arises whether the Ombudsman would still
> > serve a useful purpose. In any event, to the extent that Ombudspersons
> > are a useful alternative dispute resolution mechanisms before matters
> > escalate further, one possibility might be able to give the Ombudsman
> > powers to refer a matter to the external independent body.
> >
> >
> > The ombudsman should also have clear authority to investigate any
> > complaint brought by an employee that is related to ICANN
> > accountability. As with all Ombudsman investigations these
> > investigations must maintain the confidentiality of the employee source.
> >
> > Strengthening the role and powers of the Independent Review of Process
> Panel
> >
> > As stated in ICANN?s consultation document, the Reconsideration Process
> > is a mechanism to challenge staff action taken against ICANN policies,
> > or Board actions taken without consideration of material information or
> > based upon false or inaccurate information. In addition, the Independent
> > Review Process allows for claims that the ICANN Board acted in a manner
> > inconsistent with its Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation to be
> > considered by an independent panel of neutrals.
> >
> >
> > However, these mechanisms are in our view unsatisfactory, in particular:
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > Reconsideration by the Board Reviewing Committee is not independent
> > of the board.
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > The outcome of the Reviewing Process carried out by the IRPP is
> > purely declaratory. Moreover, its rules of procedure follow
> > arbitration rules which are well-known for their lack of
> > transparency. It is also unclear whether the IRPP gives reasons for
> > its declarations.
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > The cost of the IRPP is prohibitive for most causes.
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > The current process is only effective in the event that malfeasance
> > can be established and thus the standard for winning an IRP is too
> > high of a burden to provide meaningful accountability.
> >
> >
> > Accordingly, we recommend that, at a minimum, the IRPP?s decisions
> > should be both binding and contain reasons, which should be made public
> > as a matter of principle. In addition, the full review process should
> > accounts for errors as well as ethical lapses.
> >
> >
> > More generally, we believe that mechanisms should be established in the
> > by-laws for dissolution of the Board in exceptional circumstances,
> > consistent with the President Strategy Committee?s Draft Implementation
> > Plan for Improving Institutional Confidence 2009.
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives
> > up to its commitments?
> >
> >
> > If ICANN?s status as a private organisation is to be retained,
> > consideration should be given to broadening the scope of the issues that
> > can be taken up before the local courts, in particular issues relating
> > to the right to freedom of expression, and the rights to privacy and
> > personal security. Another possibility would be to include a unilateral
> > option clause that would enable a choice between the local courts or
> > arbitration proceedings.
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > What additional comments would you like to share that could be of
> > use to the ICANN Accountability Working Group?
> >
> >
> > We note that the creation or improvement of strong accountability
> > mechanisms are inextricably linked to the IANA transition process. In
> > fact, as we stated in our response to the IANA transition consultation:
> > ?Absent the ability to openly discuss separation of policy and
> > implementation, completing the IANA transition proposal must be
> > contingent on first completing an acceptable proposal addressing ICANN
> > accountability.? Therefore, we very much hope that, at a minimum, the
> > present contribution will be taken into account as part of the IANA
> > transition consultation.
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The NCSG looks forward to
> > further contributing to the development of strong accountability
> > mechanisms both within and outside of ICANN.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6 June 2014 12:05, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com
> > <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Gabrielle and Niels,
> >
> > Thank you for drafting this excellent statement. It is a really
> > great piece of work.
> >
> > And thanks to everyone who contributed comments and input along the
> > way.
> >
> > All the best, Maria
> >
> >
> > On 6 June 2014 11:14, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Gabrielle,
> >
> > thank you very much for the work done and responding to the
> comments
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> > 2014-06-06 5:08 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin
> > <gabrielle at article19.org <mailto:gabrielle at article19.org>>:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This should be the final document:
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> > Please note that in most instances, we didn't make any
> > further changes as there were no concrete language
> > suggestions or the comments concerned the questions
> themselves.
> >
> > Changes have been made at: Q1, para. 2, last sentence and
> > Q2, para.2, 2nd sentence.
> >
> > Please let me know if you would like the rationale for these
> > or if there is anything else we can do.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Gabrielle
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Maria Farrell [maria.farrell at gmail.com
> > <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>]
> > Sent: 03 June 2014 10:38
> > To: Rafik Dammak
> > Cc: NCSG-Policy; Niels ten Oever; Gabrielle Guillemin
> > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to
> > ?Enhancing ICANN?s Accountability?-process.
> >
> > Sorry, guys - I forgot Niels and Gabrielle weren't on the
> > NCSG PC list. Thanks, Rafik!
> >
> > Rafik, with the timeline I proposed, I let the 5th be
> > potentially a day to resolve any conflicting comments Niels
> > and Gabrielle receive. So if they get things that are hard
> > to reconcile, they may need that 24 hours to write them up.
> > But if not, we should be able to submit on 5 June.
> >
> > cheers, m
> >
> >
> > On 3 June 2014 10:34, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Maria,
> >
> > Thanks!adding niels and gabrielle in cc.
> > With your proposed timeline I can submit by 5th june?
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > On Jun 3, 2014 6:16 PM, "Maria Farrell"
> > <maria.farrell at gmail.com
> > <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com><mailto:
> maria.farrell at gmail.com
> > <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Following the 1-week extension by ICANN to submission of
> > comments, we now need to finalise and submit ours.
> >
> > Any final revisions need to be submitted by midnight GMT
> > tomorrow, Weds, 4 June. The final version will be submitted
> > to ICANN 24 hours after that.
> >
> > So 1) if you have final revisions, make them to this doc
> > (and note your rationale), or send direct to Niels and
> > Gabrielle.
> >
> > 2) Niels/Gabrielle, please send me the final version by
> > midnight GMT, Thurs 5 June.
> >
> > All the best, Maria
> >
> >
> > On 27 May 2014 13:05, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>
> > wrote:
> > Hi Maria,
> >
> > Niels and Gabrielle are going to work in the comments today
> > to resolve the comments. I guess we can have clean version
> > by tomorrow?
> > I can confirm with them
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> > 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell
> > <maria.farrell at gmail.com
> > <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com><mailto:
> maria.farrell at gmail.com
> > <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>>:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the
> > document at
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit
> > ?
> >
> > As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to
> > finalise. So I'd just like to check if the interested people
> > are still working on the draft / or satisfied with it?
> >
> > All the best, Maria
> >
> >
> >
> > On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marilia,
> >
> > thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit
> > was Tuesday 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get
> > 3 additional days because the technical issuers with
> > migration to new website
> > (
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en
> ).
> >
> > Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria
> > will handle the last call as PC chair. then having the green
> > light I will submit before the deadline.
> >
> > there will be reply period after this and I think we can
> > expand with another comment about missing parts or
> > clarifying others, in addition to commenting the
> > contributions of other groups.
> >
> > Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining
> > questions in the document.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> > 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel
> > <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
> > <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com><mailto:
> mariliamaciel at gmail.com
> > <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>>:
> >
> > Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others.
> > Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others
> > who worked on it.
> > Best,
> > Mar?lia
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
> > <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>
> > wrote:
> > Hi Avri,
> >
> > Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we
> > should lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments
> > would propose some wording.
> > I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :)
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> > <mailto:avri at acm.org><mailto:avri at acm.org
> > <mailto:avri at acm.org>>>:
> >
> > hi,
> >
> > had already indicated it in comments. have now added words
> > to Rafik's
> > added words.
> >
> > added some other weasel words too in response to some of
> > Milton's concerns.
> >
> > when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of
> > brackets.
> >
> > [we have become so ITU.]
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote:
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind
> > marking up the
> > > text with your suggestions and re-circulating?
> > >
> > > Many thanks, Maria
> > >
> > >
> > > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> > > <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rudi,
> > >
> > > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are
> > getting
> > > comments now.
> > >
> > > Rafik
> > >
> > >
> > > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick
> > <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
> > <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be><mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
> > <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>
> > > <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
> > <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be><mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
> > <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>>>:
> > >
> > > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the
> > proposed
> > > document (googledoc) a week ago.
> > >
> > > Maria, can you proceed ?
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Rudi Vansnick
> > > NPOC chair Policy Committee
> > > NPOC treasurer
> > > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
> > <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org><mailto:
> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>>
> > <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
> > <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org><mailto:
> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>>>
> > > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
> >
> <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016><tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
> > <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
> > > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
> >
> <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032><tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
> > <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
> > > www.npoc.org
> > <http://www.npoc.org><http://www.npoc.org> <
> http://www.npoc.org>
> > >
> > > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak
> > > <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> > <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>>
> > het
> > > volgende geschreven:
> > >
> > >> Hi everyone,
> > >>
> > >> We have this draft commenting ICANN
> > accountability. The
> > >> comment deadline is 27th may.
> > >> I count on PC to act quickly.
> > >>
> > >> Best Regards,
> > >>
> > >> Rafik
> > >>
> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > >> From: "Niels ten Oever"
> > <lists at digitaldissidents.org
> > <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org><mailto:
> lists at digitaldissidents.org
> > <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org>>
> > >> <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org
> > <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org><mailto:
> lists at digitaldissidents.org
> > <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org>>>>
> > >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM
> > >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to
> > ?Enhancing
> > >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process.
> > >> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> > <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu><mailto:
> NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> > <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>
> > >> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> > <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu><mailto:
> NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> > <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>>>
> > >> Cc:
> > >>
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from
> > Brenden and
> > >> Avri, have
> > >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the
> > ?Enhancing ICANN?s
> > >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and
> > comment here:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing
> > >>
> > >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be
> > great if you
> > >> could
> > >> share your comments before Monday the 26th.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >>
> > >> Niels
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Niels ten Oever
> > >> Acting Head of Digital
> > >>
> > >> Article 19
> > >> www.article19.org
> > <http://www.article19.org><http://www.article19.org>
> > <http://www.article19.org/>
> > >>
> > >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B
> > 08B5 A0F2 636D
> > >> 68E9
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> <signature.asc>_______________________________________________
> > >> PC-NCSG mailing list
> > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>>
> > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>>
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mar?lia Maciel
> > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade -
> > FGV Direito Rio
> > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society
> > - FGV Law School
> > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> >
> > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
> > <http://www.diplomacy.edu><http://www.diplomacy.edu>
> > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -
> > http://www.politics.org.br/
> > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
> > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140606/645285c4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list