Ed, a statement can be sent later, but it might then be published after the report is published. It will be added to minority statements, but not incorporated in the report. Thomas

Am 29.07.2015 um 21:41 schrieb Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>:

I would suggest that the Chairs should reconsider the deadline for submission of minority statements. A deadline 15 hours from the presumed end of document review and reconsideration ( the second call on Thursday) is unreasonable by any measure of fairness. If production deadlines and / or the dates of the public comment must be slightly shifted to accommodate the fair provision of minority views, that is a far more appropriate response to the deadline problem than squeezing those who wish to present alternate views to the public for consideration. Most of us are volunteers, with day jobs, family responsibilities and the need to sleep. If the Chairs are adamant about this deadline I would ask that the Ombudsman weigh in on the issue of fairness. I should note that I have no intention of filing a minority statement - I am aware of others, however, who wish to do so but would be precluded by what I certainly believe is an inadequate allowance of time for them to do so.

Respectfully,

Edward Morrisd

From: "Thomas Rickert" <thomas@rickert.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:08 PM To: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements

All, as you will remember, we have discussed our suggested way forward and the question of minority statements in our call yesterday. Nonetheless, we would like to offer some more information on this.

We would like to present to the community not only a draft report, but a consensus proposal. We do hope to have reached consensus on all questions so there will be no need for an additional determination of consensus after the public comment period unless the community input requires us to revisit substantial parts of our proposal.

1. We suggest you file a minority statement if you object to the overall set of recommendations. The minority statement will be referred to in an appendix to the report.

2. We suggest you provide us with your dissenting opinion to individual questions so that we can include it in the body of the report. We already heard from individuals that they appreciate this option as they do not wish their objection to an individual aspect of the report to be perceived as opposition to the overall approach we are taking. If you consider using this option, please use the following format to help add value to the proposal:

i. raise your concern ii. provide a rationale for your concern iii. please offer an alternative suggestion

In order for your statements (both minority statements and dissenting opinions on individual questions) to be published at the same time as the report will be published, they need to be received by rapporteurs, co-chairs or staff by 12.00 UTC on the 31st of July.

Thanks, Thomas

PS: In case we do not reach consensus but can only present a draft, the situation is not different from the first report and we will not have minority statements for such report. According to our charter, minority statements offer a chance to oppose to a consensus. In the absence of consensus, there is no need for minority statements. Please note that in this case, we will still allow for minority statement to be added to our final report.

That was decided by whom? It is quite clear that the Co-Chairs' unilateral decisions with regards to any work plan related issues violate the Charter. But apart from process, this is wrong, or would that be due process? Never mind even the Ombudsman quite carefully wording concern There is nothing in the Charter preventing us from separating dissent per se and the rationale therefor. Fortunately this is all on a publicly archived mailing list. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jul 29, 2015, at 22:41, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:

Ed, a statement can be sent later, but it might then be published after the report is published. It will be added to minority statements, but not incorporated in the report.

Thomas

...

Am 29.07.2015 um 21:41 schrieb Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>:

I would suggest that the Chairs should reconsider the deadline for submission of minority statements. A deadline 15 hours from the presumed end of document review and reconsideration ( the second call on Thursday) is unreasonable by any measure of fairness. If production deadlines and / or the dates of the public comment must be slightly shifted to accommodate the fair provision of minority views, that is a far more appropriate response to the deadline problem than squeezing those who wish to present alternate views to the public for consideration. Most of us are volunteers, with day jobs, family responsibilities and the need to sleep. If the Chairs are adamant about this deadline I would ask that the Ombudsman weigh in on the issue of fairness. I should note that I have no intention of filing a minority statement - I am aware of others, however, who wish to do so but would be precluded by what I certainly believe is an inadequate allowance of time for them to do so.

Respectfully,

Edward Morrisd

From: "Thomas Rickert" <thomas@rickert.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:08 PM To: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements

All, as you will remember, we have discussed our suggested way forward and the question of minority statements in our call yesterday. Nonetheless, we would like to offer some more information on this.

We would like to present to the community not only a draft report, but a consensus proposal. We do hope to have reached consensus on all questions so there will be no need for an additional determination of consensus after the public comment period unless the community input requires us to revisit substantial parts of our proposal.

1. We suggest you file a minority statement if you object to the overall set of recommendations. The minority statement will be referred to in an appendix to the report.

2. We suggest you provide us with your dissenting opinion to individual questions so that we can include it in the body of the report. We already heard from individuals that they appreciate this option as they do not wish their objection to an individual aspect of the report to be perceived as opposition to the overall approach we are taking. If you consider using this option, please use the following format to help add value to the proposal:

i. raise your concern ii. provide a rationale for your concern iii. please offer an alternative suggestion

In order for your statements (both minority statements and dissenting opinions on individual questions) to be published at the same time as the report will be published, they need to be received by rapporteurs, co-chairs or staff by 12.00 UTC on the 31st of July.

Thanks, Thomas

PS: In case we do not reach consensus but can only present a draft, the situation is not different from the first report and we will not have minority statements for such report. According to our charter, minority statements offer a chance to oppose to a consensus. In the absence of consensus, there is no need for minority statements. Please note that in this case, we will still allow for minority statement to be added to our final report.

---

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

+1 Stephanie Perrin On 2015-07-30 2:10, Avri Doria wrote:

Hi,

Quite a option you offer.

I think that there is another way to look at a minority report. There is a lot in the report that is good. What I need to decide is whether the inability and unwillingness to commit ourselves to human rights is a fatal flaw in an otherwise good report.

The choice I need to make is whether I trust ICANN to adhere to human rights considerations without NTIA oversight. We can quibble about the degree to which their obligations as a right duty bearer apply to ICANN because of our contract. Sidley has explained that there are:

...

As a general matter, in the absence of its federal contract, ICANN’s obligations for human rights will remain generally consistent although there will be some variation in particulars. So the the issue on the law depends on the extent of the variations. They may or may not end up being significant. Perhaps this needs to be studied and understood before we move further.

The current report text states:

...

All participants in these discussions agreed that ICANN should respect fundamental human rights in all of its operations I find this hard to accept given we are not willing to put any mention of Human rights in the core values part of it bylaws. Not even a simple statement like:

ICANN will be committed to respect fundamental human rights in its operations.

Or even a constrained statement like:

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.

The unwillingness to make such straight forward commitments, which are being denied by a stated need to study the issue is something I do not understand. If we are committed to respect for fundamental human rights, then lets say so! We can work out the details in WS2, but the unwillingness of the majority, especially the commercial majority, to so committ is a warning bell.

What I have no doubt about in that in the current situation is that if we were to start to stray into human rights infractions in terms of freedom of expression and other curtailments of speech, discriminatory behaviors, curtailment of the freedom of assembly and association &c. NTIA in its current role would do something to help us find a better path. I also have little doubt that if NTIA or the US Congress were to focus on our inability to commit to basic freedoms in our bylaws they would have a harder time accepting our solutions for WS1. I wonder, given that we have had this discussion, whether the congress will ask us about our commitment to basic freedoms in a future hearing. I wonder what kind of answer our spokespesons will give?

Without NTIA as the backstop and with ICANN's primary profit motives, I am not so sure anything could stop us without a bylaws commitment to honoring human rights. Money would win out, it almost always does at ICANN. Even now we are discussing discrimination within the organization because, e.g. the SOs bring in the money they should have more say. How can we be assured that in a future without an NTIA backstop ICANN would not turn into an even more commercially controlled organization? I absolutely believe we need a committment to human rights in our bylaws to preserve ourselves as a just institution.

If this deficiency a fatal flaw in the recommendation? If we really do need more study, would it be better to delay longer while we study this for WS1 inclusion? It might just be. We do have 4 more years of possible contract extension.

thanks

avri

On 29-Jul-15 16:57, Thomas Rickert wrote:

...

All, as you will remember, we have discussed our suggested way forward and the question of minority statements in our call yesterday. Nonetheless, we would like to offer some more information on this.

We would like to present to the community not only a draft report, but a consensus proposal. We do hope to have reached consensus on all questions so there will be no need for an additional determination of consensus after the public comment period unless the community input requires us to revisit substantial parts of our proposal.

1. We suggest you file a minority statement if you object to the overall set of recommendations. The minority statement will be referred to in an appendix to the report.

2. We suggest you provide us with your dissenting opinion to individual questions so that we can include it in the body of the report. We already heard from individuals that they appreciate this option as they do not wish their objection to an individual aspect of the report to be perceived as opposition to the overall approach we are taking. If you consider using this option, please use the following format to help add value to the proposal:

i. raise your concern ii. provide a rationale for your concern iii. please offer an alternative suggestion

In order for your statements (both minority statements and dissenting opinions on individual questions) to be published at the same time as the report will be published, they need to be received by rapporteurs, co-chairs or staff by 12.00 UTC on the 31st of July.

Thanks, Thomas

PS: In case we do not reach consensus but can only present a draft, the situation is not different from the first report and we will not have minority statements for such report. According to our charter, minority statements offer a chance to oppose to a consensus. In the absence of consensus, there is no need for minority statements. Please note that in this case, we will still allow for minority statement to be added to our final report.

_______________________________________________ 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

Keith +1 I think Keith is suggesting a workable solution. Saying this in my personal capacity. Best, Erika On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Drazek, Keith <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> 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

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> 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> 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

So it's really a non-issue to you but you only suggested wording (and way forward) for those who find it to be an issue. Makes sense. For the record, I am in agreement with the suggested way forward as well but to the extent that we will not have to spend a 3digit legal hours on it. I have heard the money is there anyway, but I don't think the money will keep coming as much ( the lifetime of some of the names delegated in the newgTLD is predictable) so it may be wise to spend wisely. I think how well an organisation respect "human rights and transparency" would be determined by the operating principles and governing documents of the organisation. I am a fan of "human rights/transparency" but not without indicating the specific actions that would imply such is happening or otherwise. Regards On 30 Jul 2015 10:07 am, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com> 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> 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> 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> 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 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

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

Dear Colleagues Dear Avri The string that you gave referred to was subject to severe objections by GAC and several statements by other countries. Pls do not the very fundamental issue of Human Rights with a specific and sensitive string. We should be mindful not to provoke strong reaction from various people. Please read decisions of ICANN and statements of countries in this regard. Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:59, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

It strikes me that the IRP report on GAC objections hasn't reach GAC yet :-)-O On 2015-07-30 11:26, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Dear Colleagues Dear Avri The string that you gave referred to was subject to severe objections by GAC and several statements by other countries. Pls do not the very fundamental issue of Human Rights with a specific and sensitive string. We should be mindful not to provoke strong reaction from various people. Please read decisions of ICANN and statements of countries in this regard.

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Jul 2015, at 18:59, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> wrote:

...

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 [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

I hate to complicate this discussion, but I feel duty bound to point out that the first human right many people think of these days with respect to the domain name registration system is privacy. Freedom of expression and the openness of the Internet rolls more easily off the tongue....but if anyone says what about privacy, the WHOIS would have to be re-examined. This of course conflicts with the marching orders that the NTIA has had for ICANN since its inception. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-07-30 5:59, Erika Mann wrote:

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 <mailto: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> > <mailto: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> >>> <mailto: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> >>>> <mailto: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> >>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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

Totally agree Nigel, but providing access to law enforcement is not the same as publishing to the world, and the criminal element who know how to use WHOIS. At the moment, options for nuanced disclosure are limited. SP On 2015-07-30 11:00, Nigel Roberts wrote:

Stephanie

The whole debate about the right to private and family life is more nuanced.

Without turning this list into a discussion on how respect for human rights is guaranteed on this contintent, it's worth pointing out that respecting the right of privacy does NOT mean closing off domain registration data to law enforcment. Quite the opposite.

The privacy right is a qualified right -- so it CAN be interfered with

- lawfully, when necessary in a democratic society; so long as it is - proportionate.

And I don't think that conflicts with anybody's 'marching orders'.

On 30/07/15 15:53, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

...

I hate to complicate this discussion, but I feel duty bound to point out that the first human right many people think of these days with respect to the domain name registration system is privacy. Freedom of expression and the openness of the Internet rolls more easily off the tongue....but if anyone says what about privacy, the WHOIS would have to be re-examined. This of course conflicts with the marching orders that the NTIA has had for ICANN since its inception. Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-07-30 5:59, Erika Mann wrote:

...

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 <mailto: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> > <mailto: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> >>> <mailto: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> >>>> <mailto: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> >>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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

No actually I am referring to scammers, spammers, doxxers, and really irritating (but not criminal) commercial elements who mine the WHOIS database to pursue innocent folks who have to publish their confidential information to the world in order to register a domain name. A public directory is not the way to control lawbreakers who hide behind proxy services, as has been amply debated in the recent PPSAI public comments period. Anyway lets take this debate elsewhere as it does not contribute much to the topic. Except, I would point out, that the risk balance between the harm done by public disclosure through WHOIS has changed in the 17 years that the Internet has been growing up, and it is time to revisit who is at risk, and determine where the human rights obligations fall. As you can tell, I believe privacy and the people who need it are more at risk today than law enforcement operations (who can find the registrars and the ISPs, and request the data they need there, in addition to more relevant info such as payment details). Disclosure of address and phone numbers is permanent and irrevocable thanks to value added services that have grown up to mine the WHOIS data. kind regards, Stephanie On 2015-07-30 11:18, Greg Shatan wrote:

Stephanie,

Are you referring to the criminal element who knows how to use WHOIS to hide themselves? That is certainly a huge problem and not limited to violations of criminal law -- it is also a huge problem with regard to lawbreakers whose actions are not criminal in nature.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:

Totally agree Nigel, but providing access to law enforcement is not the same as publishing to the world, and the criminal element who know how to use WHOIS. At the moment, options for nuanced disclosure are limited. SP

On 2015-07-30 11:00, Nigel Roberts wrote:

Stephanie

The whole debate about the right to private and family life is more nuanced.

Without turning this list into a discussion on how respect for human rights is guaranteed on this contintent, it's worth pointing out that respecting the right of privacy does NOT mean closing off domain registration data to law enforcment. Quite the opposite.

The privacy right is a qualified right -- so it CAN be interfered with

- lawfully, when necessary in a democratic society; so long as it is - proportionate.

And I don't think that conflicts with anybody's 'marching orders'.

On 30/07/15 15:53, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

I hate to complicate this discussion, but I feel duty bound to point out that the first human right many people think of these days with respect to the domain name registration system is privacy. Freedom of expression and the openness of the Internet rolls more easily off the tongue....but if anyone says what about privacy, the WHOIS would have to be re-examined. This of course conflicts with the marching orders that the NTIA has had for ICANN since its inception. Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-07-30 5:59, Erika Mann wrote:

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 <mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto: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> <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> > <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> <mailto: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> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> >>> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> <mailto: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> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> >>>> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto: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> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> >>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto: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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

The compromise text says "fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information”. But I do not find “free flow if information” on the UN list of fundamental human rights. Where is that right stated as fundamental? From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements Nobody has to publish their confidential information to the world in order to register a domain name. Privacy/proxy services are readily available and there is no formal proposal to take that away from anyone. I agree we can and should take this debate elsewhere, since it is a nuanced one, and there has been much misinformation spread on the topic. However, if adding the proposed language to the Bylaws changes how ICANN should "determine where the human rights obligations fall" in the policy-making process relating to this issue, then this is a very significant change. Greg On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: No actually I am referring to scammers, spammers, doxxers, and really irritating (but not criminal) commercial elements who mine the WHOIS database to pursue innocent folks who have to publish their confidential information to the world in order to register a domain name. A public directory is not the way to control lawbreakers who hide behind proxy services, as has been amply debated in the recent PPSAI public comments period. Anyway lets take this debate elsewhere as it does not contribute much to the topic. Except, I would point out, that the risk balance between the harm done by public disclosure through WHOIS has changed in the 17 years that the Internet has been growing up, and it is time to revisit who is at risk, and determine where the human rights obligations fall. As you can tell, I believe privacy and the people who need it are more at risk today than law enforcement operations (who can find the registrars and the ISPs, and request the data they need there, in addition to more relevant info such as payment details). Disclosure of address and phone numbers is permanent and irrevocable thanks to value added services that have grown up to mine the WHOIS data. kind regards, Stephanie On 2015-07-30 11:18, Greg Shatan wrote: Stephanie, Are you referring to the criminal element who knows how to use WHOIS to hide themselves? That is certainly a huge problem and not limited to violations of criminal law -- it is also a huge problem with regard to lawbreakers whose actions are not criminal in nature. Greg On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Totally agree Nigel, but providing access to law enforcement is not the same as publishing to the world, and the criminal element who know how to use WHOIS. At the moment, options for nuanced disclosure are limited. SP On 2015-07-30 11:00, Nigel Roberts wrote: Stephanie The whole debate about the right to private and family life is more nuanced. Without turning this list into a discussion on how respect for human rights is guaranteed on this contintent, it's worth pointing out that respecting the right of privacy does NOT mean closing off domain registration data to law enforcment. Quite the opposite. The privacy right is a qualified right -- so it CAN be interfered with - lawfully, when necessary in a democratic society; so long as it is - proportionate. And I don't think that conflicts with anybody's 'marching orders'. On 30/07/15 15:53, Stephanie Perrin wrote: I hate to complicate this discussion, but I feel duty bound to point out that the first human right many people think of these days with respect to the domain name registration system is privacy. Freedom of expression and the openness of the Internet rolls more easily off the tongue....but if anyone says what about privacy, the WHOIS would have to be re-examined. This of course conflicts with the marching orders that the NTIA has had for ICANN since its inception. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-07-30 5:59, Erika Mann wrote: 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<mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org<mailto: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 Jul 30, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> > <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> <mailto: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> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> >>> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> <mailto: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 >>>

Carlos, This has nothing to do with the First Amendment. This refers to internationally recognized fundamental human rights, and "free flow of information" isn't one. It may be a laudable goal, but it is simply not on the UN list of "fundamental human right." Greg On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:

Dear Steve,

Maybe Tunis agenda or anything related to the information society we live in? In any case, if we can go at least a little step further than the strict language of 1st anmendemnt, so it sounds more modern and international would be a great step forward.

Best

Carlos Raúl On Jul 30, 2015 10:00 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:

...

The compromise text says "fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information”.

But I do not find “free flow if information” on the UN list of fundamental human rights. Where is that right stated as fundamental?

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements

Nobody has to publish their confidential information to the world in order to register a domain name. Privacy/proxy services are readily available and there is no formal proposal to take that away from anyone. I agree we can and should take this debate elsewhere, since it is a nuanced one, and there has been much misinformation spread on the topic.

However, if adding the proposed language to the Bylaws changes how ICANN should "determine where the human rights obligations fall" in the policy-making process relating to this issue, then this is a very significant change.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

...

No actually I am referring to scammers, spammers, doxxers, and really irritating (but not criminal) commercial elements who mine the WHOIS database to pursue innocent folks who have to publish their confidential information to the world in order to register a domain name. A public directory is not the way to control lawbreakers who hide behind proxy services, as has been amply debated in the recent PPSAI public comments period. Anyway lets take this debate elsewhere as it does not contribute much to the topic. Except, I would point out, that the risk balance between the harm done by public disclosure through WHOIS has changed in the 17 years that the Internet has been growing up, and it is time to revisit who is at risk, and determine where the human rights obligations fall. As you can tell, I believe privacy and the people who need it are more at risk today than law enforcement operations (who can find the registrars and the ISPs, and request the data they need there, in addition to more relevant info such as payment details). Disclosure of address and phone numbers is permanent and irrevocable thanks to value added services that have grown up to mine the WHOIS data. kind regards, Stephanie

On 2015-07-30 11:18, Greg Shatan wrote:

Stephanie,

Are you referring to the criminal element who knows how to use WHOIS to hide themselves? That is certainly a huge problem and not limited to violations of criminal law -- it is also a huge problem with regard to lawbreakers whose actions are not criminal in nature.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

...

Totally agree Nigel, but providing access to law enforcement is not the same as publishing to the world, and the criminal element who know how to use WHOIS. At the moment, options for nuanced disclosure are limited. SP

On 2015-07-30 11:00, Nigel Roberts wrote:

...

Stephanie

The whole debate about the right to private and family life is more nuanced.

Without turning this list into a discussion on how respect for human rights is guaranteed on this contintent, it's worth pointing out that respecting the right of privacy does NOT mean closing off domain registration data to law enforcment. Quite the opposite.

The privacy right is a qualified right -- so it CAN be interfered with

- lawfully, when necessary in a democratic society; so long as it is - proportionate.

And I don't think that conflicts with anybody's 'marching orders'.

On 30/07/15 15:53, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

...

I hate to complicate this discussion, but I feel duty bound to point out that the first human right many people think of these days with respect to the domain name registration system is privacy. Freedom of expression and the openness of the Internet rolls more easily off the tongue....but if anyone says what about privacy, the WHOIS would have to be re-examined. This of course conflicts with the marching orders that the NTIA has had for ICANN since its inception. Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-07-30 5:59, Erika Mann wrote:

> 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 > <mailto: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 Jul 30, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au > <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> > > <mailto: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> > >>> <mailto: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 > >>> > > >

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

As Carlos has said, the Tunis agenda attempted to clarify...Unfortunately the 1948 text was not explicit, but you will find it implicit in several sections, notably 19 and 27 (1). The UN Guidelines on TBDF of 1990 attempted to clarify expectations, largely in the context of data protection http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3ddcafaac.pdf. As you can see from the text here, the duty to protect the data subject is quite explicit. The free flow of data is largely assumed, but expressed in 9. You may also want to check out the last paragraph, when thinking about ICANN accountability. I think this is a digression from your important work, folks. cheers SP On 2015-07-30 12:16, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote:

Dear Steve,

Maybe Tunis agenda or anything related to the information society we live in? In any case, if we can go at least a little step further than the strict language of 1st anmendemnt, so it sounds more modern and international would be a great step forward.

Best

Carlos Raúl

On Jul 30, 2015 10:00 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote:

The compromise text says "fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information”.

But I do not find “free flow if information” on the UN list of fundamental human rights. Where is that right stated as fundamental?

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements

Nobody has to publish their confidential information to the world in order to register a domain name. Privacy/proxy services are readily available and there is no formal proposal to take that away from anyone. I agree we can and should take this debate elsewhere, since it is a nuanced one, and there has been much misinformation spread on the topic.

However, if adding the proposed language to the Bylaws changes how ICANN should "determine where the human rights obligations fall"in the policy-making process relating to this issue, then this is a very significant change.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:

No actually I am referring to scammers, spammers, doxxers, and really irritating (but not criminal) commercial elements who mine the WHOIS database to pursue innocent folks who have to publish their confidential information to the world in order to register a domain name. A public directory is not the way to control lawbreakers who hide behind proxy services, as has been amply debated in the recent PPSAI public comments period. Anyway lets take this debate elsewhere as it does not contribute much to the topic. Except, I would point out, that the risk balance between the harm done by public disclosure through WHOIS has changed in the 17 years that the Internet has been growing up, and it is time to revisit who is at risk, and determine where the human rights obligations fall. As you can tell, I believe privacy and the people who need it are more at risk today than law enforcement operations (who can find the registrars and the ISPs, and request the data they need there, in addition to more relevant info such as payment details). Disclosure of address and phone numbers is permanent and irrevocable thanks to value added services that have grown up to mine the WHOIS data. kind regards, Stephanie

On 2015-07-30 11:18, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

Stephanie,

Are you referring to the criminal element who knows how to use WHOIS to hide themselves? That is certainly a huge problem and not limited to violations of criminal law -- it is also a huge problem with regard to lawbreakers whose actions are not criminal in nature.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:

Totally agree Nigel, but providing access to law enforcement is not the same as publishing to the world, and the criminal element who know how to use WHOIS. At the moment, options for nuanced disclosure are limited. SP

On 2015-07-30 11:00, Nigel Roberts wrote:

Stephanie

The whole debate about the right to private and family life is more nuanced.

Without turning this list into a discussion on how respect for human rights is guaranteed on this contintent, it's worth pointing out that respecting the right of privacy does NOT mean closing off domain registration data to law enforcment. Quite the opposite.

The privacy right is a qualified right -- so it CAN be interfered with

- lawfully, when necessary in a democratic society; so long as it is - proportionate.

And I don't think that conflicts with anybody's 'marching orders'.

On 30/07/15 15:53, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

I hate to complicate this discussion, but I feel duty bound to point out that the first human right many people think of these days with respect to the domain name registration system is privacy. Freedom of expression and the openness of the Internet rolls more easily off the tongue....but if anyone says what about privacy, the WHOIS would have to be re-examined. This of course conflicts with the marching orders that the NTIA has had for ICANN since its inception. Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-07-30 5:59, Erika Mann wrote:

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 <mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto: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 Jul 30, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> > <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> <mailto: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> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> >>> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> <mailto: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 >>>

_______________________________________________ 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

Actually, Keith's proposed wording is very close to the international standard on this point. UNDHR Article 19 guarantees "the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any medium and regardless of frontiers" which is another way of saying "free flow of information". Personally, I would be fine with replacing "free flow of info" with the exact language in article 19 just quoted, but I think Keith's proposed text of "free flow of information" is a much more succinct way of saying the same thing. Thanks, Robin On Jul 30, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote:

Dear Steve,

Maybe Tunis agenda or anything related to the information society we live in? In any case, if we can go at least a little step further than the strict language of 1st anmendemnt, so it sounds more modern and international would be a great step forward.

Best

Carlos Raúl

On Jul 30, 2015 10:00 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote: The compromise text says "fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information”.

But I do not find “free flow if information” on the UN list of fundamental human rights. Where is that right stated as fundamental?

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements

Nobody has to publish their confidential information to the world in order to register a domain name. Privacy/proxy services are readily available and there is no formal proposal to take that away from anyone. I agree we can and should take this debate elsewhere, since it is a nuanced one, and there has been much misinformation spread on the topic.

However, if adding the proposed language to the Bylaws changes how ICANN should "determine where the human rights obligations fall" in the policy-making process relating to this issue, then this is a very significant change.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: No actually I am referring to scammers, spammers, doxxers, and really irritating (but not criminal) commercial elements who mine the WHOIS database to pursue innocent folks who have to publish their confidential information to the world in order to register a domain name. A public directory is not the way to control lawbreakers who hide behind proxy services, as has been amply debated in the recent PPSAI public comments period. Anyway lets take this debate elsewhere as it does not contribute much to the topic. Except, I would point out, that the risk balance between the harm done by public disclosure through WHOIS has changed in the 17 years that the Internet has been growing up, and it is time to revisit who is at risk, and determine where the human rights obligations fall. As you can tell, I believe privacy and the people who need it are more at risk today than law enforcement operations (who can find the registrars and the ISPs, and request the data they need there, in addition to more relevant info such as payment details). Disclosure of address and phone numbers is permanent and irrevocable thanks to value added services that have grown up to mine the WHOIS data. kind regards, Stephanie

On 2015-07-30 11:18, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

Stephanie,

Are you referring to the criminal element who knows how to use WHOIS to hide themselves? That is certainly a huge problem and not limited to violations of criminal law -- it is also a huge problem with regard to lawbreakers whose actions are not criminal in nature.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: Totally agree Nigel, but providing access to law enforcement is not the same as publishing to the world, and the criminal element who know how to use WHOIS. At the moment, options for nuanced disclosure are limited. SP

On 2015-07-30 11:00, Nigel Roberts wrote: Stephanie

The whole debate about the right to private and family life is more nuanced.

Without turning this list into a discussion on how respect for human rights is guaranteed on this contintent, it's worth pointing out that respecting the right of privacy does NOT mean closing off domain registration data to law enforcment. Quite the opposite.

The privacy right is a qualified right -- so it CAN be interfered with

- lawfully, when necessary in a democratic society; so long as it is - proportionate.

And I don't think that conflicts with anybody's 'marching orders'.

On 30/07/15 15:53, Stephanie Perrin wrote: I hate to complicate this discussion, but I feel duty bound to point out that the first human right many people think of these days with respect to the domain name registration system is privacy. Freedom of expression and the openness of the Internet rolls more easily off the tongue....but if anyone says what about privacy, the WHOIS would have to be re-examined. This of course conflicts with the marching orders that the NTIA has had for ICANN since its inception. Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-07-30 5:59, Erika Mann wrote: 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 <mailto: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 Jul 30, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> > <mailto: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> >>> <mailto: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 >>>

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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

For the record, my suggested language was taken directly from NTIA's April 2014 written congressional testimony (as I'd quoted in another email thread a day or so ago). I was simply trying to help those who feel strongly about including a reference to human rights to place it in the context of NTIA's own statements and expectations, and to define it in a way that might receive support from others who are legitimately concerned about mission creep at ICANN. I've said I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about addressing this issue in WS1, but fully support further work in WS2. Regards, Keith On Jul 30, 2015, at 5:10 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Thanks Robin. I searched the UNDHR for the word “flow” so that’s why I missed it. From: Robin Gross Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 12:49 PM To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez Cc: Steve DelBianco, <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements Actually, Keith's proposed wording is very close to the international standard on this point. UNDHR Article 19 guarantees "the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any medium and regardless of frontiers" which is another way of saying "free flow of information". Personally, I would be fine with replacing "free flow of info" with the exact language in article 19 just quoted, but I think Keith's proposed text of "free flow of information" is a much more succinct way of saying the same thing. Thanks, Robin On Jul 30, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote: Dear Steve, Maybe Tunis agenda or anything related to the information society we live in? In any case, if we can go at least a little step further than the strict language of 1st anmendemnt, so it sounds more modern and international would be a great step forward. Best Carlos Raúl On Jul 30, 2015 10:00 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: The compromise text says "fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information”. But I do not find “free flow if information” on the UN list of fundamental human rights. Where is that right stated as fundamental? From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements Nobody has to publish their confidential information to the world in order to register a domain name. Privacy/proxy services are readily available and there is no formal proposal to take that away from anyone. I agree we can and should take this debate elsewhere, since it is a nuanced one, and there has been much misinformation spread on the topic. However, if adding the proposed language to the Bylaws changes how ICANN should "determine where the human rights obligations fall" in the policy-making process relating to this issue, then this is a very significant change. Greg On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: No actually I am referring to scammers, spammers, doxxers, and really irritating (but not criminal) commercial elements who mine the WHOIS database to pursue innocent folks who have to publish their confidential information to the world in order to register a domain name. A public directory is not the way to control lawbreakers who hide behind proxy services, as has been amply debated in the recent PPSAI public comments period. Anyway lets take this debate elsewhere as it does not contribute much to the topic. Except, I would point out, that the risk balance between the harm done by public disclosure through WHOIS has changed in the 17 years that the Internet has been growing up, and it is time to revisit who is at risk, and determine where the human rights obligations fall. As you can tell, I believe privacy and the people who need it are more at risk today than law enforcement operations (who can find the registrars and the ISPs, and request the data they need there, in addition to more relevant info such as payment details). Disclosure of address and phone numbers is permanent and irrevocable thanks to value added services that have grown up to mine the WHOIS data. kind regards, Stephanie On 2015-07-30 11:18, Greg Shatan wrote: Stephanie, Are you referring to the criminal element who knows how to use WHOIS to hide themselves? That is certainly a huge problem and not limited to violations of criminal law -- it is also a huge problem with regard to lawbreakers whose actions are not criminal in nature. Greg On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Totally agree Nigel, but providing access to law enforcement is not the same as publishing to the world, and the criminal element who know how to use WHOIS. At the moment, options for nuanced disclosure are limited. SP On 2015-07-30 11:00, Nigel Roberts wrote: Stephanie The whole debate about the right to private and family life is more nuanced. Without turning this list into a discussion on how respect for human rights is guaranteed on this contintent, it's worth pointing out that respecting the right of privacy does NOT mean closing off domain registration data to law enforcment. Quite the opposite. The privacy right is a qualified right -- so it CAN be interfered with - lawfully, when necessary in a democratic society; so long as it is - proportionate. And I don't think that conflicts with anybody's 'marching orders'. On 30/07/15 15:53, Stephanie Perrin wrote: I hate to complicate this discussion, but I feel duty bound to point out that the first human right many people think of these days with respect to the domain name registration system is privacy. Freedom of expression and the openness of the Internet rolls more easily off the tongue....but if anyone says what about privacy, the WHOIS would have to be re-examined. This of course conflicts with the marching orders that the NTIA has had for ICANN since its inception. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-07-30 5:59, Erika Mann wrote: 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<mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org<mailto: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 Jul 30, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> > <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> <mailto: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> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> >>> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> <mailto: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 >>> _______________________________________________ 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<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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Agreed Robin and I also want to strongly add my support for including Keiths language in the WS1 proposal, I was unable to make the call today but would have made a very strong intervention to support its inclusion as a very key part that was framed using NTIAs own language. -James ________________________________ From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Sent: 30 July 2015 17:49 To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements Actually, Keith's proposed wording is very close to the international standard on this point. UNDHR Article 19 guarantees "the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any medium and regardless of frontiers" which is another way of saying "free flow of information". Personally, I would be fine with replacing "free flow of info" with the exact language in article 19 just quoted, but I think Keith's proposed text of "free flow of information" is a much more succinct way of saying the same thing. Thanks, Robin On Jul 30, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote: Dear Steve, Maybe Tunis agenda or anything related to the information society we live in? In any case, if we can go at least a little step further than the strict language of 1st anmendemnt, so it sounds more modern and international would be a great step forward. Best Carlos Raúl On Jul 30, 2015 10:00 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: The compromise text says "fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information”. But I do not find “free flow if information” on the UN list of fundamental human rights. Where is that right stated as fundamental? From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 11:47 AM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements Nobody has to publish their confidential information to the world in order to register a domain name. Privacy/proxy services are readily available and there is no formal proposal to take that away from anyone. I agree we can and should take this debate elsewhere, since it is a nuanced one, and there has been much misinformation spread on the topic. However, if adding the proposed language to the Bylaws changes how ICANN should "determine where the human rights obligations fall" in the policy-making process relating to this issue, then this is a very significant change. Greg On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: No actually I am referring to scammers, spammers, doxxers, and really irritating (but not criminal) commercial elements who mine the WHOIS database to pursue innocent folks who have to publish their confidential information to the world in order to register a domain name. A public directory is not the way to control lawbreakers who hide behind proxy services, as has been amply debated in the recent PPSAI public comments period. Anyway lets take this debate elsewhere as it does not contribute much to the topic. Except, I would point out, that the risk balance between the harm done by public disclosure through WHOIS has changed in the 17 years that the Internet has been growing up, and it is time to revisit who is at risk, and determine where the human rights obligations fall. As you can tell, I believe privacy and the people who need it are more at risk today than law enforcement operations (who can find the registrars and the ISPs, and request the data they need there, in addition to more relevant info such as payment details). Disclosure of address and phone numbers is permanent and irrevocable thanks to value added services that have grown up to mine the WHOIS data. kind regards, Stephanie On 2015-07-30 11:18, Greg Shatan wrote: Stephanie, Are you referring to the criminal element who knows how to use WHOIS to hide themselves? That is certainly a huge problem and not limited to violations of criminal law -- it is also a huge problem with regard to lawbreakers whose actions are not criminal in nature. Greg On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Totally agree Nigel, but providing access to law enforcement is not the same as publishing to the world, and the criminal element who know how to use WHOIS. At the moment, options for nuanced disclosure are limited. SP On 2015-07-30 11:00, Nigel Roberts wrote: Stephanie The whole debate about the right to private and family life is more nuanced. Without turning this list into a discussion on how respect for human rights is guaranteed on this contintent, it's worth pointing out that respecting the right of privacy does NOT mean closing off domain registration data to law enforcment. Quite the opposite. The privacy right is a qualified right -- so it CAN be interfered with - lawfully, when necessary in a democratic society; so long as it is - proportionate. And I don't think that conflicts with anybody's 'marching orders'. On 30/07/15 15:53, Stephanie Perrin wrote: I hate to complicate this discussion, but I feel duty bound to point out that the first human right many people think of these days with respect to the domain name registration system is privacy. Freedom of expression and the openness of the Internet rolls more easily off the tongue....but if anyone says what about privacy, the WHOIS would have to be re-examined. This of course conflicts with the marching orders that the NTIA has had for ICANN since its inception. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-07-30 5:59, Erika Mann wrote: 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<mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org<mailto: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 Jul 30, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> > <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> <mailto: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> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> >>> <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com> <mailto: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 >>> _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Hello Steve,

...

But I do not find “free flow if information” on the UN list of fundamental human rights.   Where is that right stated as fundamental?   

I can envisage in the future that computers will have rights once they become sentient – so no doubt they will want that right ☺ Regards, Bruce Tonkin

Just to get this on the record: there is no formal proposal, correct. However, there are many proposals and issues that are as yet unresolved which will price an otherwise unregulated service out of the marketplace. There is indeed a minority report that recommends restricting P/P services to those who do not/will not use a domain for financial transactions. That is an impressive restriction on the ability to use privacy proxy services. Cheers SP On 2015-07-30 11:47, Greg Shatan wrote:

Nobody has to publish their confidential information to the world in order to register a domain name. Privacy/proxy services are readily available and there is no formal proposal to take that away from anyone.

Hello Greg, This is off topic, but I couldn't resist.

...

Are you referring to the criminal element who knows how to use WHOIS to hide themselves? 

I am not sure that WHOIS is the “tool” for hiding themselves. They generally use stolen credit cards and fake or stolen identities to not just hide themselves, but also avoid actually paying for any of the services they use. One of the side effects of this practice is that some innocent people actually have their names associated with inappropriate domain names and websites in the WHOIS entries. One of the most frequent “tools” to hide themselves is to use free email services from companies such as Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. They are able to then use these email services to confirm that their email address is accurate, and hence complete the registration procedure. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

Stephanie's email raises a larger issue of whether the addition of this human rights language to ICANN's Core Values in it Bylaws (a) merely prevents ICANN from backsliding from its current treatment of human rights issues after the NTIA transition, or (b) creates new obligations for ICANN and changes the way ICANN approaches current obligations. This emphasizes that it clearly appears to be the latter. But we don't know, because we are in "Ready, Fire, Aim" mode, and the work to understand what we're doing will only come after its done. Greg On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

I hate to complicate this discussion, but I feel duty bound to point out that the first human right many people think of these days with respect to the domain name registration system is privacy. Freedom of expression and the openness of the Internet rolls more easily off the tongue....but if anyone says what about privacy, the WHOIS would have to be re-examined. This of course conflicts with the marching orders that the NTIA has had for ICANN since its inception. Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-07-30 5:59, Erika Mann wrote:

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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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

Stephanie, It certainly helps my understanding of the effect of this language for you to clarify that it "attempts to improve ICANN's accountability with respect to those human rights obligations" and is not merely intended to keep ICANN from backsliding. I certainly did not construe your observation as a request to remove the human rights language. But I think it is fair to look at it as a reason to do so, at least until we understand and agree on its consequences. I agree that "Slowing down this process would help everyone understand what the fine points of these statements might mean." In my mind the question is what process should be slowed down -- the process of including this language in the Bylaws (which can be dealt with in WS2), or the process of producing a report for public comment. I suggest it's the former. It now seems like a number of people think it's neither. Greg On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

It does not "create" new obligations Greg, I think it points out the obligations that currently exist and attempts to improve ICANN's accountability with respect to those human rights obligations. So please do not construe my observation as a reason/request to remove the human rights language. I just believe it should be clear what the words mean. Slowing down this process would help everyone understand what the fine points of these statements might mean. THat might slow down concensus. SP

On 2015-07-30 11:11, Greg Shatan wrote:

Stephanie's email raises a larger issue of whether the addition of this human rights language to ICANN's Core Values in it Bylaws (a) merely prevents ICANN from backsliding from its current treatment of human rights issues after the NTIA transition, or (b) creates new obligations for ICANN and changes the way ICANN approaches current obligations.

This emphasizes that it clearly appears to be the latter. But we don't know, because we are in "Ready, Fire, Aim" mode, and the work to understand what we're doing will only come after its done.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

...

I hate to complicate this discussion, but I feel duty bound to point out that the first human right many people think of these days with respect to the domain name registration system is privacy. Freedom of expression and the openness of the Internet rolls more easily off the tongue....but if anyone says what about privacy, the WHOIS would have to be re-examined. This of course conflicts with the marching orders that the NTIA has had for ICANN since its inception. Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-07-30 5:59, Erika Mann wrote:

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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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

With respect to Avri, whose position I very much apprecite on these matter I certainly would object to that formulation mostloudly since it appears extremely well drafted with the design of excluding all the other fundamental rights. I'm not even going to make a list of what they are (you can look at hte Europan Union Charter at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/charter/index_en.htm) But fair hearing and a right to private life are right in the middle of ICANN's work. What is absolutely unacceptable is anything weaker than. "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect, and ensure the respect of, fundamental human rights". On 30/07/15 09:16, Drazek, Keith 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> 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Imposing /any/ requirements on the policies on ccTLDs is outside of ICANN scope (unless you can show me authority otherwise). So this is actually a non-question and a straw-man argument. But I would say that in carrying out the IANA contract ICANN should, indeed MUST, conduct itself to the highest standards of international norms. Fair hearing. Right to free expression. Right to property. All controversial things like that. You'd disagree? On 30/07/15 11:34, Jordan Carter wrote:

Should ICANN impose global human rights norms on the policies of ccTLDs, in your view?

Jordan

On 30 July 2015 at 22:29, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:

With respect to Avri, whose position I very much apprecite on these matter I certainly would object to that formulation mostloudly since it appears extremely well drafted with the design of excluding all the other fundamental rights.

I'm not even going to make a list of what they are (you can look at hte Europan Union Charter at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/charter/index_en.htm)

But fair hearing and a right to private life are right in the middle of ICANN's work.

What is absolutely unacceptable is anything weaker than.

"Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect, and ensure the respect of, fundamental human rights".

On 30/07/15 09:16, Drazek, Keith 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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Jordan Carter

Chief Executive *InternetNZ*

+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter

/A better world through a better Internet /

If I didn't know better I would think you are trying to be humorous. ICANN can not impose anything on the policies of ccTLDs. It can make policy which is binding on the members of the ccNSO during their membership. But it's not what ICANN should impose on OTHERS it is what ICANN should do ITSELF :-)-O el On 2015-07-30 11:34, Jordan Carter wrote:

Should ICANN impose global human rights norms on the policies of ccTLDs, in your view?

Jordan

On 30 July 2015 at 22:29, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:

With respect to Avri, whose position I very much apprecite on these matter I certainly would object to that formulation mostloudly since it appears extremely well drafted with the design of excluding all the other fundamental rights.

I'm not even going to make a list of what they are (you can look at hte Europan Union Charter at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/charter/index_en.htm)

But fair hearing and a right to private life are right in the middle of ICANN's work.

What is absolutely unacceptable is anything weaker than.

"Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect, and ensure the respect of, fundamental human rights". [...]

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

What about a cross reference to commitment number 1 ("in conformity with relevant principles of international law, international conventions, and applicable local law") in order to clarify that there is no substantial change? Just a thought Jorge -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2015 13:29 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements Hi, I appreciate this and view this formulation with much favor. "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect, and ensure the respect of, fundamental human rights". I was trying to accept a compromise and was allowing that we only specifically mention the rights NTIA had explicitly mentioned in the communications. In terms of the compromise formulation, almost requested that it state: "Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect fundamental human, with special focus on the rights of the exercise of free expression and the free flow of information." But I was trying to be amenable. Perhaps too much. thanks for strengthening my backbone on this. avri On 30-Jul-15 12:29, Nigel Roberts wrote:

With respect to Avri, whose position I very much apprecite on these matter I certainly would object to that formulation mostloudly since it appears extremely well drafted with the design of excluding all the other fundamental rights.

I'm not even going to make a list of what they are (you can look at hte Europan Union Charter at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/charter/index_en.htm)

But fair hearing and a right to private life are right in the middle of ICANN's work.

What is absolutely unacceptable is anything weaker than.

"Within its mission and in its operations, ICANN will be committed to respect, and ensure the respect of, fundamental human rights".

On 30/07/15 09:16, Drazek, Keith 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> 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 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