At-Large, ALAC, Freedom of Expression and ICANN's core values.
Hi, There has been a conversation ongoing on the NARALO list that seems to me to belong on this list. Some of that list, me among them, felt is was important tome someone [NARALO, ALAC, ICANN] make a statement similar to one made by ISOC on the problem with the continuing action of the Egyptian government related to its shutting off of access to the Internet. An action that continues from day to day while we remain silent. Some on that list felt it was none of our business and out of ICANN's scope. Others, me among them, argued that it was in scope, given ICANN responsibility for IP and AS numbers and core value #1.
"Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet."
and that besides it was contrary to Human Rights most of our countries have agreed to in binding covenants:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
19.2
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
Others felt that it wasn't proper for a bunch of North Americans to bring up such things given our awful reputation. And especially for US citizens to do so, given that we have congress representatives who want to create an Internet Kill Switch, seemed hypocritical. Others argued that our government's drive to create a kill switch was indeed a reason for us from the US to speak up and do something before everybody was cutting off the internet every time there was a protest against the established government. Finally, it was said that such an effort should be lead by AFRALO and since no other RALO seemed to be discussing this, we should just let it go. Or maybe send a note to someone at some point. It was certainly _not_ for me to send such a note to anyone, but as far as I could tell, there wasn't any rule against my doing so. Hence, this note. I am still in my first year as an ALS member and a participant in At-Large so I guess I should ask: Does At-large think this issue is out of scope for ICANN? for ALAC? a.
I have been avidly reading the NARALO list myself. In my own view, the At-Large should be concerned and the ALAC, as its representative in ICANN councils, should mirror that concern. Governments do dumb ass things all the time to stifle dissent..or, manufacture consensus. That cutoff is right up there up among the best of the dumb things perpetrated by governments everywhere. I'm for all the freedoms listed so, I don't like it. But I'm exercised to interpret the entire Egyptian kerfuffle as a broad attack or even a major threat to the 'operational stability and reliability etc' of the Internet. Afterall, all of us, with the possible exception of Egyptians end users, are busy chugging away. I seriously doubt if pooh-pooh noises from ICANN would be worth a warm bucket of spit. So, maybe a message from the ALAC voicing support of the ISOC statement would be appropriate. Best, Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
There has been a conversation ongoing on the NARALO list that seems to me to belong on this list.
Some of that list, me among them, felt is was important tome someone [NARALO, ALAC, ICANN] make a statement similar to one made by ISOC on the problem with the continuing action of the Egyptian government related to its shutting off of access to the Internet. An action that continues from day to day while we remain silent.
Some on that list felt it was none of our business and out of ICANN's scope.
Others, me among them, argued that it was in scope, given ICANN responsibility for IP and AS numbers and core value #1.
"Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet."
and that besides it was contrary to Human Rights most of our countries have agreed to in binding covenants:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
19.2
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
Others felt that it wasn't proper for a bunch of North Americans to bring up such things given our awful reputation. And especially for US citizens to do so, given that we have congress representatives who want to create an Internet Kill Switch, seemed hypocritical.
Others argued that our government's drive to create a kill switch was indeed a reason for us from the US to speak up and do something before everybody was cutting off the internet every time there was a protest against the established government.
Finally, it was said that such an effort should be lead by AFRALO and since no other RALO seemed to be discussing this, we should just let it go. Or maybe send a note to someone at some point.
It was certainly _not_ for me to send such a note to anyone, but as far as I could tell, there wasn't any rule against my doing so.
Hence, this note.
I am still in my first year as an ALS member and a participant in At-Large so I guess I should ask:
Does At-large think this issue is out of scope for ICANN? for ALAC?
a.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (2)
-
Avri Doria -
Carlton Samuels