There are a few points in this thread I would like to respond to.
First, I volunteer for this subgroup.
Second, I agree with Keith's addition to the language, for the reasons stated above.
Third, I think the approach taken by the Co-Chairs is a good one, and I support that.
Fourth, there is one element in the newly proposed additional text which really must be changed. It is the list of "requirements," being presented as if these are agreed text:
These discussions identified the following, non-exhaustive, list of accountability-related requirements
:
- the NTIA criteria to maintain the openness of the Internet, including free expression and the free flow of information
- the need to avoid extending Icann's mission into content regulation
- the importance of assessing the impact of Icann policies on Human rights
There was no agreement or consensus that these are "requirements." They are reasons offered during the discussions by those who wanted language (or particular language) included. I do not object
to the first (because it's a statement of fact, and presented as such, and is not being used as an argument for particular text (to which I object)) or the third (because I agree with it, and it does not exclude other types of impact assessment).
However, I have to object to the second "requirement." I've only seen this mentioned by one or two people and it has not even been seriously discussed on the list or on any call in relation
to the Human Rights commitment. More to the point, I do not think that this point is a reason why we should have Human Rights language in the Bylaws and I object to the linkage being enshrined in this document. There are types of content control that clearly
implicate Human Rights concerns and others that do not (indeed there are those that are consistent with and uphold fundamental Human Rights). ICANN's relationship to "content regulation" is not
per se a Human Rights issue.
If we had time, I might make a broad demand regarding this section, which would be followed by discussion and most likely a compromise. Since we don't have time, I will start with the compromise,
which removes no text (even text I disagree with). It simply revises the introduction so there is no implication that this is an agreed list of "requirements":
In these discussions, some participants raised the following as accountability-related reasons for including a commitment to fundamental Human Rights in the Bylaws:
:
I can live with this in the text without further comment. Please make this change. Thank you.
Greg Shatan