In addition to Avri's points, such a provision could help as well to ensure that future business models that relate to more sensitive strings (.gay for example) will continue to be treated as any other string. Erika On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Off the top of my head, I think a first thing we would have to do would be to start understanding the impact, if any, of ICANN operations and policies on human rights. Some of this work is already starting in the human rights working party (HRWP), though that is a rather informal beginning. I would also think that some part of the staff would need to start taking these issues into consideration. I do not think that it would cause any serious changes in the near future but would make us more aware as time went on, and would give us a basis for discussion both in the HRWP and in the ACSO and Board.
In terms of the specific things it might limt us from, and this would require some analysis on specifc events, might be creating any kinds of policies or operations that forced limitation of content, beyond the limitations required by law for incitement, on domain named sites. It would in fact strengthen our postion in that respect.
Most important though, it would cover a hole left by the loss of the NTIA backstop, on any issue concerning freedom of expression, free flow of information or openness of the Internet.
thanks avri
On 30-Jul-15 11:07, Drazek, Keith wrote:
Hi Chris,
I'll have to defer to others with more expertise on this one. It's a good question that should be addressed.
Best, Keith
On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
Keith,
This looks interesting. Could we think of an example of something concrete ICANN would have to do if it made this commitment? Or something it would not be able to do?
Cheers,
Chris
On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:16 , Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> wrote:
Hi Avri,
In order to tie your suggestion directly to the language in Secretary Strickling's April 2014 written congressional testimony (included in a prior email) and to reduce concerns about scope creep, would language along these lines be acceptable to you?
"Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect the fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information."
Speaking personally, I could probably support this formulation. To be clear, I have not discussed this with the RySG, but it's consistent with the requirements outlined by NTIA so I think it's certainly worth considering.
I'm not advocating including this in the Bylaws, but I'm not objecting to it either. However, if we don't reach consensus for adding to the Bylaws, I definitely think this is worth further consideration in WS2 and would support an explicit reference using this or similar language and timetable for doing so.
Regards, Keith
On Jul 30, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Within its mission, ICANN will be committed to respect fundamental human rights in its operationsespecially with regard to the exercise of free expression or the free flow of information.
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community