[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