[PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] COE Doc open to comments
Rudi Vansnick
rudi.vansnick
Thu Sep 25 10:18:20 EEST 2014
Rafik,
I?ll start the process today ? will also close the other call for consensus for Call for expert candidates of the IANA Cross Community Group today (23:59 UTC). So far it looks like we have already a good majority for the candidature of Avri Doria.
Rudi Vansnick
Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)
www.npoc.org
rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
Op 25-sep.-2014, om 04:20 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 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>> 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>> 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>> 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>] on behalf of Avri
>>>> Doria [avri at ACM.ORG <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>]
>>>> Sent: 10 September 2014 14:52
>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>> <mailto: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>>:
>>>> >>
>>>> > Dear Rafik,
>>>> >
>>>> > Has this been submitted?
>>>> >
>>>> > Best,
>>>> >
>>>> > Niels
>>>> >
>>>> > Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
>>>> >
>>>> > Article 19 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>>:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> 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 <mailto: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> 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>] on
>>>> >>>>>>>> behalf of joy [joy at APC.ORG <mailto:joy at APC.ORG>]
>>>> Sent: 22 July 2014 22:03
>>>> >>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>> <mailto: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>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>> <mailto: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>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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/>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
>>>> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> (lists), www.williamdrake.org
>>>> <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> ***********************************************
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> 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/>
>>>> 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>
>>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140925/8807bb02/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list