[PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] COE Doc open to comments

Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak
Thu Sep 25 05:20:02 EEST 2014


Hi Maria, Rudi,

can we start the call for consensus for this statement?

Rafik

2014-09-22 21:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> thanks Joy!
> seeing endorsement and support here, we need PC chairs to make the call
> for consensus and get this ready to be submitted .
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-09-22 7:44 GMT+09:00 joy <joy at apc.org>:
>
>>  One other follow up - once this is finalised, I'd be happy to post a
>> link to it on the APC site
>> Cheers
>> Joy
>>
>> On 21/09/2014 12:19 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>
>> I apologize for commenting rather late, and for not signing into the
>> document....I dont do google identities.  So I show up as anonymous.  I
>> caught a few typos, and added a couple of things.
>> Thanks for doing all the work Gabrielle, and I endorse it as well. If I
>> get time I may send in my own separate comments, focusing in on the
>> problems that have arisen in the context of WHOIS.  no promises though,
>> swamped....
>> cheers Stephanie
>> On 2014-09-20, 6:36, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Also a lot of appreciation from me to those who worked on putting this
>> statement together. I would be very happy if the NCSG endorsed it.
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
>> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com> <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Rafik and thank you very much Gabrielle and all who worked on
>> the drafting.
>> I endorse this document. I only made one minor suggestion regarding
>> consistency.
>> Best,
>> Mar?lia
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi everyone,
>>
>>     Comments were made on the document, can the PC proceed with
>>     review and endorsement?
>>     Thanks,
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>     On Sep 18, 2014 5:58 PM, "Gabrielle Guillemin"
>>     <gabrielle at article19.org <mailto:gabrielle at article19.org>
>> <gabrielle at article19.org>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi all
>>
>>         Hope all is well. Here is an updated version of the comments
>>         on the COE report for your consideration.
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit
>>
>>         All best,
>>
>>         Gabrielle
>>         ________________________________________
>>         From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>         <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>] on behalf of Avri
>>         Doria [avri at ACM.ORG <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG> <avri at ACM.ORG>]
>>         Sent: 10 September 2014 14:52
>>         To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>         <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>         Subject: Re: COE Doc open to comments
>>
>>         Hi,
>>
>>         I am currently doing a edit pass though the document.  By and
>>         large I
>>         agree with what it says and have made minor edits and comments.
>>
>>         There is one section I am strongly opposed to: ICANN Legal
>>         Status.
>>         this reads like an America overall forever clause.  I think that
>>         becoming an international organization has been studied, is
>>         feasible
>>         and could be done without fear of becoming an IGO.  I think
>>         it needs
>>         to be studied further especially once we have understood the
>>         parameters for ICANN accountability and NTIA Stewardship.
>>
>>         I am also of two minds concerning the hate speech clause.  I
>>         think
>>         that this also needs further discussion to deal with the
>>         tussle among
>>         rights where the European trade-off falls differently than the US
>>         trade-off.  I recommend leaving this this out too.
>>
>>         I strongly agree, very strongly agree, with the first objection
>>         concerning government roles and responsibilities. I think the
>>         stmt
>>         would be stronger standing alone without the debatable
>>         clauses being
>>         included in the doc.
>>
>>         As it stands now, the document does not have my support.
>>
>>         avri
>>
>>
>>         On 10-Sep-14 08:37, Robin Gross wrote:
>>         > Thanks, folks.  I made a few small edits, mostly to tighten
>>         up the
>>         > lingo on the doc.  The statement looks great to me and
>>         ready to go.
>>         > And I warmly thank the statement's drafters and editors!   Well
>>         > done!
>>         >
>>         > Thank you, Robin
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > On Sep 10, 2014, at 3:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>         >
>>         >> 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
>>         <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org>
>> <lists at digitaldissidents.org>>:
>>         >>
>>         > Dear Rafik,
>>         >
>>         > Has this been submitted?
>>         >
>>         > Best,
>>         >
>>         > Niels
>>         >
>>         > Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
>>         >
>>         > Article 19 www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org/>
>> <http://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 <mailto:gabrielle at article19.org>
>> <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 <joy at apc.org> <mailto:joy at apc.org>
>> <joy at apc.org>]
>>         >>>>>> Sent: 29 July 2014 21:56 To: Gabrielle Guillemin;
>>         >>>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>         <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>> <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
>>         <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>] on
>>         >>>>>>>> behalf of joy [joy at APC.ORG <mailto:joy at APC.ORG>
>> <joy at APC.ORG>]
>>         Sent: 22 July 2014 22:03
>>         >>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>         <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>> <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
>>         <mailto:joy at APC.ORG> <joy at APC.ORG>>
>>         >>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>         <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>> <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
>>         <mailto:joy at apc.org> <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
>>         <mailto:joy at APC.ORG> <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
>>         <http://www.ncuc.org/> <http://www.ncuc.org/>
>>         >>>>>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
>> <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>>         (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>> <wjdrake at gmail.com>
>>         >>>>>>>>> (lists), www.williamdrake.org
>>         <http://www.williamdrake.org/> <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>         >>>>>>>>> ***********************************************
>>         >>>>>>>>>
>>         >>>>>>>>>
>>         >>>>>>>>>
>>         >>>>>>>
>>         >>>>>>
>>         >>>>>>
>>         >>>>>
>>         >>>
>>         >
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> <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>
>> <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 listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://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/20140925/feab4e7e/attachment-0001.html>



More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list