[PC-NCSG] COE Doc open to comments

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Niels,

thanks for asking, Gabrielle were asking for edits and comments and I think
that is partly done.
since were are late for submission NCSG policy committee should proceed
swiftly so we can submit the comment. the comment link
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit


@Joy @Robin @Avri can you please check the document quickly?

Best,

Rafik

2014-09-10 18:56 GMT+09:00 Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org>:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear Rafik,
>
> Has this been submitted?
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
>
> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>
> On 08/29/2014 05:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > Hi Gabrielle,
> >
> > thank you very much for this effort, that is coming at perfect time
> > just before IGF and the session there organized by council of
> > europe about the report (Details shared by Bill few days ago)
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > 2014-08-29 23:02 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin
> > <gabrielle at article19.org>:
> >
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> Hope all is well. Just a quick note to say that I had a go at
> >> summarising the various comments that have been made by various
> >> NCSG members about the COE report on human rights. Here is a
> >> draft:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit
> >>
> >>
> >>
> Your comments / edits are welcome. Let me know if there is anything else I
> >> can do to help.
> >>
> >> All the best,
> >>
> >> Gabrielle
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message----- From: joy [mailto:joy at apc.org] Sent:
> >> 29 July 2014 21:56 To: Gabrielle Guillemin;
> >> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: COE Doc open to
> >> comments
> >>
> >> Hi all - just a note to advise that I checked with Lee Hibbard at
> >> Council of Europe on the deadline for comments. He's noted they
> >> are aiming for a compilation of comments by 8 September. We
> >> should try to finalise sooner if we can, though, and I'll aim to
> >> take another look at the shared document later this week. Cheers
> >> Joy On 25/07/2014 8:34 a.m., joy wrote:
> >>> Thanks so much Gabrielle I am not actually sure when the
> >>> comments are due - but will check. Regards Joy On 23/07/2014
> >>> 10:40 p.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote:
> >>>> Hi all
> >>>>
> >>>> Hope all is well. Thanks very much for all the comments on
> >>>> the COE
> >> document. As Marilia said, I'd be happy to contribute too but I
> >> won't be able to do so until mid-/late August.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the meantime, I thought it might help to get us going if
> >>>> we have a
> >> document that others can start working on based on comments
> >> already received, so here is a link to a googledoc where I have
> >> just reproduced Ed, Joy and Milton's contributions.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoa
> >>>>
> >>>>
> ChoYYmrBfo/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>>
> >>>> Do get in touch if there are any technical problems with the
> >>>> document.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hope that helps.
> >>>>
> >>>> All best,
> >>>>
> >>>> Gabrielle ________________________________________ From:
> >>>> NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of
> >>>> joy [joy at APC.ORG] Sent: 22 July 2014 22:03 To:
> >>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: COE Doc open to
> >>>> comments
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Ed - thanks so much for this additional work through of
> >>>> the document in detail - that is extremely helpful! Shall we
> >>>> start a shared document and begin building the submission
> >>>> based on these and
> >> other inputs?
> >>>> anyone else have time to comment? We should try and develop
> >>>> a response soon .. also, i am still mulling over your points,
> >>>> Ed, but a few responses below .... thanks again! Joy
> >>>>
> >>>> On 21/07/2014 10:44 a.m., Edward Morris wrote:
> >>>>> Thanks to Joy for her usual comprehensive and erudite
> >>>>> analysis. A few things I?d like to offer for consideration,
> >>>>> in response both to Joy?s post and to the CoE document
> >>>>> itself:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1.  Ordinarily I would be strongly supportive of Joy?s
> >>>>> recommendation that ICANN be prodded to join the Global
> >>>>> Network Initiative (GNI). I probably still am. However, I?m
> >>>>> a bit concerned about the resignation of the Electronic
> >>>>> Frontiers Foundation (EFF)
> >> from the GNI in October of last year.
> >>>>> Before proceeding with a recommendation that ICANN join the
> >>>>> GNI, I?d suggest that we reach out to our EFF members and
> >>>>> determine their views on the matter, given the action of
> >>>>> their parent organization.
> >>>>>
> >>>> That's a great idea - would you like to do that? I can also
> >>>> ask Katitza Rodriguez
> >>>>> 2. Lee, Monika and Thomas should be thanked both for their
> >>>>> work on this report and for the overall effort of the CoE
> >>>>> in promoting the inclusion of human rights considerations
> >>>>> within internet governance generally, and within ICANN
> >>>>> specifically. There is a lot of good in this report. I want
> >>>>> to particularly commend the authors on recognizing that
> >>>>> domain names such as .sucks ?ordinarily come within the
> >>>>> scope of protection offered by the right of freedom of
> >> expression?(?117).
> >>>>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>>> 3. I agree with the author?s suggestion that a human rights
> >>>>> advisory panel be created within ICANN (?134). NCSG member
> >>>>> Roy Balleste has done some excellent work in this area and
> >>>>> I?d suggest he be consulted as to whether the specific
> >>>>> composition of the panel suggested in this report is an
> >>>>> optimal one.
> >>>> Great - I'd love to see this - also we did an NCUC submission
> >>>> about 18months ago on human rights and ICANN - it's still
> >>>> relevant imho.
> >>>>> 4. The authors incorrectly suggest that the GAC is the
> >>>>> ?sole voice of human rights? within ICANN (?125). We should
> >>>>> politely remind the Council of Europe that the leading
> >>>>> voice for human rights within ICANN has never been GAC but
> >>>>> rather has been the NCSG, it?s predecessor, and it?s member
> >>>>> constituencies.
> >>>>>
> >>>> quite right - it might be the sole voice for governments,
> >>>> but certainly not for human rights!
> >>>>> 5. The authors may be partially correct in stating the
> >>>>> American Bill of Rights do not apply to ICANN (?9). As a
> >>>>> corporation, it is likely that ICANN is not obligated to
> >>>>> follow the precepts of the Bill of Rights in it?s
> >>>>> relationships with others. I say likely, because if ICANN
> >>>>> were construed by the courts to be a U.S. government
> >>>>> contractor, which in some ways it currently is, ICANN could
> >>>>> be construed as participating in state action and then
> >>>>> would be obligated to act as if it were a state actor vis a
> >>>>> vis third parties. In this case, the Bill of Rights would
> >>>>> apply to ICANN in its
> >> relationship with others.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think it is also important to note that under American
> >>>>> law ICANN is considered a person, albeit a non-natural
> >>>>> person, and does benefit from the protections offered by
> >>>>> Bill of Rights. It is bound to the Bill of Rights in this
> >>>>> way. Further, ICANN is also protected from government
> >>>>> interference through the Declaration of Rights of the
> >>>>> Constitution of the State of California (article 1), one of
> >>>>> the most comprehensive statutory grants of rights that
> >>>>> exist in the world. These are important considerations as
> >>>>> we debate the future
> >> legal status and location of ICANN corporate.
> >>>> at the risk of stirring the constitutional law dragons, i
> >>>> think a key question is also how the international
> >>>> obligations of the US goverment relate to a corporation such
> >>>> as ICANN
> >>>>> 6. The suggestion that a legal model other than trademark
> >>>>> law be considered to ?address speech rights? (?117) is
> >>>>> welcome, with the caveat that any such model must expand
> >>>>> freedom of expression and not further restrict it. As bad
> >>>>> as the trademark maximalist model we now have is, there are
> >>>>> many legal models far more dangerous for ICANN to adhere
> >>>>> to, and open-ended recommendations in this regard should
> >>>>> best be avoided lest they be used by those favoring a more
> >>>>> restrictive
> >> speech model.
> >>>> hhmmm - maybe we could toss around some more ideas here ...
> >>>> via the shared doc?
> >>>>> 7. The authors recognize the difficulty defining and
> >>>>> actualizing in policy the term ?public interest? (?115). As
> >>>>> they acknowledge, it is a vague term ?providing neither
> >>>>> guidance nor constraint on ICANN?s
> >> actions?
> >>>>> (?115). They then suggest we need to ?flesh out the
> >>>>> concept? of global public interest to strengthen
> >>>>> accountability and transparency within ICANN (?115).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I?d suggest we move away from use of the term ?public
> >>>>> interest? in all regards, as it?s imprecise definition
> >>>>> leads to more problems than it solves. I?m particularly
> >>>>> nonplused by the positioning of the concepts of
> >>>>> accountability and transparency as a seeming subset of
> >> ?public interest?
> >>>>> (115).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Accountability and transparency are practices ICANN needs
> >>>>> to embrace regardless of the ?public interest?, whatever it
> >>>>> is. These twin concepts strengthen both the ICANN community
> >>>>> and ICANN corporate. An attitude that transparency and
> >>>>> accountability are something that must be done to
> >>>>> strengthen ICANN externally (e.g. in the public interest)
> >>>>> should be rejected in favor of an acknowledgement that such
> >>>>> processes strengthen ICANN internally.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any benefit to the nebulous ?public interest? is welcome,
> >>>>> but the principle reason for ICANN to conduct it?s affairs
> >>>>> in a transparent and accountable manner is that it
> >>>>> strengthens both ICANN the institution and ICANN the
> >>>>> community.  It is self-interest, not public interest, which
> >>>>> should drive ICANN to function in a manner as transparent
> >>>>> and accountable as possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We need to reject any suggestion that accountability and
> >>>>> transparency are dependent variables subject to whatever it
> >>>>> is that ?public interest? is determined to be. They stand
> >>>>> on their own.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I do think ICANN should be as transparent and accountable as
> >>>> possible and I agree that transparency and accountability
> >>>> should not be dependent variables, but I don't have the same
> >>>> negative reaction to "public interest" - on the contrary, I
> >>>> find it a useful concept, especially in administrative law as
> >>>> a way to counter the power imbalances between private
> >>>> interests and those of the wider communit(ies) which States
> >>>> have obligations to protect - also because the notion of
> >>>> public law and State obligations in the public arena is a
> >>>> core component of the international human rights framework
> >>>> (which distinguishes between public and private law for
> >>>> example). So I would not want to negate it in the context of
> >>>> responding to the CoE paper nor in thinking through how this
> >>>> is relevant to ICANN.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 8. I am concerned about the attempt of the authors to
> >>>>> position ?hate speech? as an accepted derogation from free
> >>>>> expression norms. This is not something that is generally
> >>>>> accepted in the human rights community, but rather is a
> >>>>> controversial notion that provokes rather heated and
> >>>>> emotional argumentation amongst erstwhile allies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We need to reject any notion that ICANN, in the guise of
> >>>>> obeying human rights norms, should police speech or in any
> >>>>> way deny domain name applications because they may run
> >>>>> afoul of ?hate speech?
> >> principles.
> >>>>> This is in keeping with the longstanding tradition of this
> >>>>> SG to oppose efforts of ICANN to regulate content or
> >>>>> speech.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My personal view is that hate speech laws are not
> >>>>> justifiable in any society or institution with any sort of
> >>>>> serious commitment to the principles of free speech. I know
> >>>>> that there are many within our SG supportive of my views in
> >>>>> this regard; I suspect there may be members that differ.
> >>>>> Regardless of specific views on the issue, I hope we can
> >>>>> all agree that ICANN is not the institution that should be
> >>>>> determining what ?hate speech? is and then enforcing its
> >> determination.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The authors acknowledge that ?despite its frequent use,
> >>>>> there is no clear or unique understanding of what is ?hate
> >>>>> speech?, and the definitions and conceptions vary in
> >>>>> different countries? (?45). They then recognize that the
> >>>>> European Court of Human Rights has not defined the term in
> >>>>> order that it?s reasoning, ?is not confined within
> >>>>> definitions that could limit its action in future
> >>>>> cases?(?46). Given the complexity of the issues, the
> >>>>> authors suggest that ICANN needs to regularly consult with
> >>>>> the Council of Europe (?46). I?d suggest that ICANN should
> >>>>> only do so if the same opportunity is given to
> >>>>> intergovernmental organizations from all the
> >> world?s regions. Europe should not receive special
> >> consideration.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The authors should be credited with attempting to create
> >>>>> unity out of the plurality of opinions and views relating
> >>>>> to the proposed hate speech derogation from the universally
> >>>>> recognized right of free expression. Upon close scrutiny,
> >>>>> though, they cannot be said to have
> >> accomplished their goal.
> >>>>> Take, for example, their references to Article two of the
> >>>>> Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on
> >>>>> Cybercrime, as they attempted to define some portion of
> >>>>> ?hate crime?.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Additional Protocol cannot be considered part of the
> >>>>> universal human rights acquis. The numbers are pretty
> >>>>> stark: Of the seventeen non Council of Europe signatories
> >>>>> to the Cybercrime Convention only two have ratified the
> >>>>> Additional Protocol. Of even greater significance, of the
> >>>>> forty-seven members of the Council of Europe only twenty
> >>>>> have signed the Additional Protocol (?45).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rather than demonstrating acceptance of the ?hate speech?
> >>>>> derogation, the lack of ratification of the Additional
> >>>>> Protocol suggests severe reservations about the concept.
> >>>>> Certainly the proposed definition is suspect. This is true
> >>>>> even in Europe, the area of the world where the hate speech
> >>>>> derogation appears to have its greatest popularity, and
> >>>>> within the Council of Europe itself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Despite this, while recognizing there should be a
> >>>>> ?balancing? test, the authors recommend that ICANN ?should
> >>>>> ensure that ?hate speech? is not tolerated in the
> >>>>> applied-for gTlds? (?60).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We need to vociferously oppose this recommendation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ICANN should not be in the business of regulating speech.
> >>>>> It certainly should not be in the business of deciding what
> >>>>> is or is not hate speech, a concept with limited
> >>>>> international acceptance and a variable definition, and
> >>>>> then prohibiting it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We cannot and should not accept any proposal that puts
> >>>>> ICANN in the position of being a censor. This particular
> >>>>> recommendation within this Council Of Europe report does
> >>>>> just that and needs to be rejected.
> >>>> The debate on hate speech also has a strong feminist
> >>>> critique, some of which supports your arguments, some of
> >>>> which does not - we could talk more offlist about it. I agree
> >>>> on the 'ICANN not being a censor' point, but this begs the
> >>>> question of how should human rights, ALL rights, be balanced
> >>>> in the decision-making - on this I would point back to the
> >>>> need for a rigorous policy making process (getting the rights
> >>>> arguments looked at there and getting GAC members involved
> >>>> in that process, which is one of our longstanding SG
> >>>> positions). maybe there are other ideas here as well ...
> >>>>> 9. In the strongest terms possible I oppose any suggestion
> >>>>> of giving ICANN ?international or quasi-international
> >>>>> status? (?136) and I hope others will join me, as an SG and
> >>>>> individually, in this
> >> opposition.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Joy ?shudders?? at the authors suggestion that the
> >>>>> international legal status of the Red Cross / Red Crescent
> >>>>> societies should serve as a ?source of inspiration? for
> >>>>> ICANN?s future organizational legal position (?137). I
> >>>>> shudder with her. Joy then suggests that the ILO might ?be
> >>>>> a better model?. It might be, but if ICANN received a
> >>>>> status similar to that of the ILO I respectfully suggest
> >>>>> that shudder rather than support would still be an
> >>>>> appropriate response.
> >>>> actually I am not suggesting ILO as a model, i was simply
> >>>> surprised that the CoE paper did not even mention it - I know
> >>>> some governments are looking at the ILO becuase it is
> >>>> tri-partite (government, employers and worker representation)
> >>>> - and therefore using it to try and persuade other
> >>>> governments that other multi-stakeholder options do exist
> >>>> internationally
> >>>>> With international legal status come a set of privileges
> >>>>> and legal immunities. The ILO is actually a pretty good
> >>>>> place to see what these entail. As a specialized agency of
> >>>>> the United Nations the ILO benefits from the 1947
> >>>>> Convention on Privileges and Immunities which grants,
> >>>>> amongst other benefits:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process for the organization and for
> >>>>> its officials in its official acts, with even greater
> >>>>> immunity for executive officials,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. The inviolability of the organizations physical
> >>>>> premises, assets and archives as well as special protection
> >>>>> for its communications,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3. Restriction from financial controls,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 4. Exemption from taxation of the organization and its
> >>>>> employees,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 5. Certain privileges similar to that given diplomats for
> >>>>> those attending organizational meetings.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Red Cross receives similar privileges. The agreement
> >>>>> between the ICRC and the Swiss Federal Council mandates
> >>>>> that the Red Cross receives, amongst other benefits:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process and prosecution. This
> >>>>> immunity extends to both the organization and to officials
> >>>>> and continues with respect to officials even after they
> >>>>> leave office,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2.  Inviolability of its premises and archives,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3. Exemption from taxation,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 4. Special customs privileges,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 5. Special protection for its communications.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is easy to see why ICANN staff would be excited about
> >>>>> proposals to give it international status. It is less easy
> >>>>> to understand why anyone who is not a member of the ICANN
> >>>>> staff thinks that this is a
> >> good idea.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In justifying its support for granting ICANN international
> >>>>> legal status the authors write,  ?ICANN should be free from
> >>>>> risk of dominance by states, other stakeholders, or even
> >>>>> its own staff? (?136). I agree with the principle but fail
> >>>>> to see how granting ICANN international legal status does
> >>>>> anything but further entrench the growing hegemony of ICANN
> >>>>> staff, making their actions less
> >> transparent and less accountable.
> >>>> well, i don;t disagree there :)
> >>>>> As currently constituted, the three sources of definite
> >>>>> external accountability for ICANN are 1) the NTIA, 2) the
> >>>>> attorney general of the State of California (AG) and the 3)
> >>>>> courts, principally those located in California. As the
> >>>>> NTIA withdraws from oversight the two remaining sources of
> >>>>> external control over ICANN are the AG and the courts.
> >>>>> Should this CoE proposal for international status be
> >>>>> accepted, in lieu of other changes, there will be no
> >>>>> external control over ICANN. We cannot support this
> >>>>> proposition.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I believe ICANN is already properly structured as a
> >>>>> private, not for profit corporation. The authors
> >>>>> inadvertently recognize benefits that accrue to this
> >>>>> structure. In stating that ICANN has ?flexibly? met the
> >>>>> ?changing needs of the internet?(?1) the authors
> >>>>> implicitly recognize a value associated more with private
> >>>>> corporations than with those institutions accorded
> >>>>> international status. In using the .XXX decision as an
> >>>>> example where the values of free expression trumped
> >>>>> community and corporate objections (?57), it should be
> >>>>> noted that some observers, myself included, believe the
> >>>>> Board?s decision in this matter was caused by fear of
> >>>>> losing a lawsuit threatened by ICM Registry. Immunity from
> >>>>> legal process eliminates this control
> >> mechanism.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To support corporate structure does not necessarily mean
> >>>>> supporting ICANN?s continued corporate residence in
> >>>>> California. I reject the notion, though, that leaving
> >>>>> California necessarily would make things better from the
> >>>>> perspective of civil society or of the individual user. It
> >>>>> would depend upon the legal structure of the
> >> receiving jurisdiction.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As long as ICANN is situated in California there is a
> >>>>> corporate reorganization that would better help ICANN meet
> >>>>> the goals enunciated by the CoE authors: the cration of
> >>>>> membership within ICANN.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Changing ICANN?s corporate structure from that of a
> >>>>> California public benefit corporation without members to
> >>>>> that of a California public benefits corporation with
> >>>>> members, per ?5310 - ?5313 of the California Corporations
> >>>>> Code, would do a far better job of creating a truly
> >>>>> responsive and democratic ICANN than granting ICANN
> >>>>> international status would. A more comprehensive discussion
> >>>>> of this concept can be found in my 27 June post on
> >>>>> Accountability elsewhere on
> >> this list.
> >>>> thanks Ed - I'll take a look
> >>>>> I would also suggest that creating a special international
> >>>>> legal status for ICANN would somewhat entrench the
> >>>>> organization, and not in a good way. None of us know what
> >>>>> the communications landscape will
> >> look like in a decade.
> >>>>> There is certainly the possibility that block chain
> >>>>> technology, or technologies not yet dreamt of, will obviate
> >>>>> the need for a central naming and addressing authority. It
> >>>>> is reasonable to think that an entity with international
> >>>>> legal status would be more likely to try to cling to it?s
> >>>>> ossified technology than would a private corporation
> >>>>> responsive to its members.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for considering my comments. Hopefully they will
> >>>>> provide a further basis for discussion.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Indeed !
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ed ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy <joy at APC.ORG> To:
> >>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014
> >>>>> 20:31:04 +1200 Subject: Re: COE Doc open to comments
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Marilia - definitely - here are my preliminary thoughts
> >>>>> after some discussion in APC
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think the paper is very interesting and basically saying
> >>>>> that ICANN (including GAC) is not fulfilling human rights
> >>>>> obligations and that private sector, intellectual property
> >>>>> and and law enforcement interests have been weighed too
> >>>>> heavily in the balance of decision-making to the detriment
> >>>>> of human rights and other stakeholders, including
> >>>>> vulnerable groups. These are all valid (if not entirely
> >>>>> new) points - some reflections for working up to a possible
> >>>>> submission: + I think this paper is evidence that discourse
> >>>>> is moving beyond
> >> "whether"
> >>>>> human rights apply to ICANN public policy making (the
> >>>>> previous paper I contributed to) and more specifically into
> >>>>> "how" in a very practical way - that is excellent and
> >>>>> should be welcomed - the clear link to human rights in
> >>>>> NETMundial and related documents seems to be tipping the
> >>>>> human rights discussion - that is also really positive +
> >>>>> the use of case studies to look at how HR apply in specific
> >>>>> ICANN + policy areas is good, showing up deficiencies in
> >>>>> both the standards and processes ICANN is using - The paper
> >>>>> does mention social and cultural rights but only in passing
> >>>>> in relation to the community application dotgay, so I think
> >>>>> this makes our own work on ICANN and cultural rights timely
> >>>>> and this CoE paper will be useful for it. + several parts
> >>>>> of the analysis and of the recommendations were + already
> >>>>> made by the Non Commercial Users Constituency in a
> >>>>> submission developed in 2013 (one
> >>>>>
> >>>>> that we worked on and which NCUC submitted to ICANN on
> >>>>> human rights and new gTLDs) - but I do not see that paper
> >>>>> cited - we should point out this connection in making
> >>>>> comments + clearly governments are reaching for the human
> >>>>> rights framework to challenge the behaviour of other
> >>>>> governments (as in relation the law enforcement and the
> >>>>> registrar accreditation agreement) - so while the paper is
> >>>>> directed  at ICANN, it is also squarely directed between
> >>>>> and among governments - it suggests there is a lot of
> >>>>> discussion going on behind GAC's closed doors on this.... I
> >>>>> really like the references to the UN resolutions internet
> >>>>> rights - it is good to see this jurisprudence emerging. +
> >>>>> there is inadequate focus on how the HR framework applies
> >>>>> to + business - not just business interests in ICANN
> >>>>> stakeholders, but also the contracted parties, such as
> >>>>> registrars and ICANN's role as a regulator  - Anriette
> >>>>> raised these points and I think we need to think through
> >>>>> how to respond on this - especially on the human rights and
> >>>>> business rules that were developed in the UN + the analysis
> >>>>> and recommendations on community applications is very +
> >>>>> useful and I strongly support this aspect + the paper
> >>>>> recommends reconsideration of ICANN's legal basis to +
> >>>>> include human rights in its bylaws - that is good - but
> >>>>> they should also become a member of the GNI: Rafik Dammak
> >>>>> and others have been calling for this for 2 yrs but ICANN
> >>>>> board has actively opposed that step. so we can raise that
> >>>>> + also recommends looking at the Red Cross as possible
> >>>>> inspiration + for a model - that made me shudder give how
> >>>>> the RC has behaved in policy making in
> >> ICANN.
> >>>>> A better model might be the ILO - but we must respond on
> >>>>> that specific
> >> point.
> >>>>> + finally, perhaps one of the more thorny and challenging
> >>>>> issues is + trying to define the public interest aspects of
> >>>>> ICANN's role and also GAC's responsibilities - i think it's
> >>>>> useful to raise this again and try to squarely address it
> >>>>> and there are some options (the paper recommends an expert
> >>>>> advisory group) - NCUC recommended a human rights impact
> >>>>> assessment of policy proposals - i think we could also
> >>>>> revive that idea.....
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Joy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 18/07/2014 1:01 a.m., Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi all,
> >>>>> Gabrielle from Article 19, myself and a few others
> >>>>> volunteered to work on a draft contribution with comments
> >>>>> and suggestions about CoE document. Joy, your involvement
> >>>>> is super important. Shall we start to get it going? Best,
> >>>>> Mar?lia
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:41 AM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Bill - what a good idea to suggest a comment period- and
> >>>>> great that they took it up. And a follow up event in LA
> >>>>> would be excellent - I am sure APC would want to support
> >>>>> it. I do hope it hasn't killed Thomas' chances completely!
> >>>>> Joy
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 8/07/2014 6:41 p.m., William Drake wrote: Hi Joy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I?m glad Lee did this, as it?s not COE?s normal procedure
> >>>>> at all. We suggested they try it at our meeting with them
> >>>>> in London.  We also agreed to propose a follow up event for
> >>>>> LA.  It?d be good to have our own position on paper prior.
> >>>>> Since the paper may have screwed Thomas? campaign for GAC
> >>>>> chair he should have more time in LA :-( Cheers
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bill
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, joy <joy at APC.ORG> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Avri - thanks for sending the link through - sorry it
> >>>>> has taken me a while to get back on this, I've been away
> >>>>> from the office a while and it's taken a while to catch up
> >>>>> .... Thanks also Milton for your blog post about the paper
> >>>>> - I agree with most of your comments. There are quite a few
> >>>>> recommendations in the paper - was there any discussion at
> >>>>> the ICANN 50 meeting about an NCSG response? I note that
> >>>>> some of the points and recommendations in the paper were
> >>>>> previously covered in a submission by NCUC on new gTLDs in
> >>>>> 2013 and it would be worth connecting to that work in any
> >>>>> follow up (which I am happy to volunteer to help with).
> >>>>> Cheers Joy
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 7/07/2014 3:51 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Council of Europe triggers debate on ICANN & Human Rights
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/icann-and-human-rights.asp
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> Is on line and open to comments.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> avri
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *********************************************** William J.
> >>>>> Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change &
> >>>>> Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich,
> >>>>> Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN,
> >>>>> www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct),
> >>>>> wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org
> >>>>> ***********************************************
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUECBeAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpXNcH/RmrMuQsheRB/sVHgCzNseKp
> Jarc5tEpwHpB6DmX/JGkpcJX02i0etWuGLYzrWdA8d2bfQCorUdIVN9UFjZWEeGl
> qZ76JH6Q8iwYVBS+e2Bdj+8o0SJGgOer+111OwLVgET+GzvuS+n+w941DYB/2IBV
> zm4rNvCXzjNAGJS7p/+OFA/1ilMxMAyKez/LS8Nh6ITR6ynm8JT4//39c8TADFkL
> gVMxlH6DVN9RT4sGD7P09RvFBPoZjMajwylOEknKgUjSHQtzeMXFv8YT8u7A+1DU
> CIY6x58YOUv2fHZ1yre4EOSb60WQeiy/6sa3AiEeP0DODqje55GUMaAGXYJ9VVE=
> =rD0H
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140910/d7f288f3/attachment-0001.html>