Hello EVan On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
2010/1/25 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn@gmail.com>
This is a task that could progress well if at Large could reach out to
external Rights groups such as the Internet Rights and Principles ( Max Senges, Lisa Horner ) who may be able to involve Civil Society participants with a particular interest in Rights and contribute to this task with expertise and ease.
That was indeed my hope. Perhaps it would even encourage greater (general) participation in At-Large by these groups for that would give them a direct entry path into this process. Of course, civil society groups who are already part of NCSG could (and should) be already using that path.
It is positive that Max has responded to the message Olivier forwarded. It feels good to know that IRP would be interested to work on this.
This can also be an opportunity to work together with NCSG as some of the NCSG members including Milton Mueller have a particular interest in Rights.
Given that the committee is itself a product of the GNSO, NCSG has not needed an invitation from At-Large to particpate. Heaven knows just about every OTHER constituency of GNSO is there; it is a great disappointment to me that they are not at the committee driving this issue. At least Konstantinos was there at the last meeting. But the fact was -- in the last meeting -- was that I was the only person at the meeting who was pressing for movement on the aspirational document. Nobody else on the call objected when Michele declared that to be out of scope.
In some of these meetings, quite a few suggestions are dismissed as out of scope.
It may still be argued that this is an issue better led by At-Large anyway, because IMO a rights document should be universal -- that it, it should be asserted with regard to ccTLDs as well as generics. Such a broad approach is indeed outside the scope of the GNSO.
As for Milton, given recent writings I would surmise that constructive engagement with At-Large is not high on his priority list.
I feel that their involvement in this task would give the proposed Charter a good shape, though I don't agree with many of them on their "Rights-based approach" to Internet Governance.
I have no problem with rights documents, especially when they are accompanied by associated registrant responsibilities. For instance, I would suggest that it is the responsibility of corporate registrants to provide accessible and accurate contact information, and of all registrants to be vigilant regarding their domains' expiry dates.
Nor do I have problems with the idea of drawing up a document to define Registrant's rights. The earlier reference to my disagreement pertains to IRP's idea of considering Rights as CENTRAL to all debates on Internet Governance. But this is besides the point., Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
-- Evan Leibovitch evan@telly.org