FYI -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Re: Re: [At-Large] Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now? Date : Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:57:31 +0100 De : Max Senges <maxsenges@gmail.com> Pour : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Copie à : Lisa Horner <lisa@global-partners.co.uk> FYI. (please reply CC'ing the at large list too) thanks for sending this That's exactly what I thought, when I read the question (I've kept the full body of the previous discussion below, for Max and Lisa to be able to read through it, if they don't have access to the thread. The IRP coalition is an ALS, isn't it? the IRP is not an ALS - I was there as rep. for the Committee for a Democratization of the United Nations Perhaps its member's experiences in the field could catalyse the crystallisation of such a charter? i very much think that our member are interested to work on this best max Warmest regards, Olivier > 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. 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. > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Adam Peake<ajp@glocom.ac.jp> <mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > > >> Hi, I promised to contribute to the Charter, WG A, yet to date have >> contributed zero. The calls have been at times I simply cannot make (and the >> next call also not possible.) Still, I should have read and continued to >> work online. Apologies. I'll try to get up to date over the coming weeks. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> One of the things I've long wanted to do within At-Large was to help draft >> >>> some kind of a Charter (or Declaration) of Registrant Rights. It was >>> mentioned frequently during the At-Large Summit and I had believed that it >>> was something that ought to be universal, simple and direct. If done >>> properly, acceptance by ICANN would be a clear indication that the >>> organization was serious about serving the interests of the public good. >>> >>> So when the GNSO voted to create a joint ALAC/GNSO team to draft a >>> "Registrant >>> Rights Charter< >>> https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/14_december_200... >>> >>>> " >>>> >>> March 4 as part of a broader effort to update the RAA, I was hopeful. >>> However, such hope has been substantially diminished if not eliminated. >>> >>> The team was split into two working groups, subgroup A to work on the >>> charter and subgroup B to work on specific RAA amendments to be >>> considered; >>> I because involved in subgroup A. I soon became aware that this subgroup, >>> dominated by ICANN's contracted parties, insisted that the core work of >>> this >>> charter should be an enumeration of registrant rights (and >>> responsibilities) >>> *as they exist in the current RAA*. To me, this is more of a documentation >>> project than a definitive assertion of how ICANN should be serving its >>> public. >>> >>> When it was noted in one meeting that a "Charter" was more of a >>> declaration >>> of how things should be (as opposed to just reporting what exists right >>> now), that declaration was to be referred to as "aspirational" Charter and >>> considered a secondary issue. In fact, many in the meeting had no idea >>> what >>> might even be included in such an "aspirational" document -- in response, >>> I >>> hastily drew up some potential articles and typed them into the Adobe >>> Chat. >>> (Thanks to Heidi, they can be found publicly at >>> >>> https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?raa_wg_a_workspace_for_aspiration... >>> ). >>> >>> There has been much discussion of the Charter since then, on a mailing >>> list >>> and in teleconferences, as an enumeration of what exists in the RAA. Staff >>> has provided a document of this >>> nature< >>> https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/20_january_2010... <https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/20_january_2010...> >>> >>>> >>> which >>> Cheryl and I have offered to review and provide pointers to assist with >>> understanding the jargon. But, far more troubling, at the last >>> meeting< >>> https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?20_january_2010_raa_dt_sub_wg_a_r... >>> >>>> >>> chair >>> Michele Neylon declared that the "aspirational document" was no longer >>> within the scope of the group. >>> >>> So as of this moment, the concept of a true charter -- a declaration of >>> what >>> registrants ought to be able to expect from ICANN -- is completely out of >>> the process. Even the little that existed has been shunted aside. >>> >>> Now, it hasn't helped that so few members of At-Large have participated. >>> Beau, Cheryl and myself appear to have been the only people from At-Large >>> with enough interest to participate. As a result it's easy to get bullied >>> at >>> meetings where there is a chorus of voices ready to oppose initiatives to >>> serve the interests of end-users and personal registrants. Given that >>> advocating the rights of the public is At-Large's primary mandate, one >>> would >>> think that a Charter of Rights of registrants would be a core component of >>> such advocacy. It would guide both At-Large and ICANN itself in their >>> policy >>> making and indeed ultimately affect the RAA as it moved forward. >>> >>> What remains is to ponder what's next. Maybe it was a mistake to believe >>> that a GNSO WG could be the proper forum for crafting such a document in >>> the >>> first place. Maybe it's just as well, I would easily argue that a >>> statement >>> of registrant rights, if sufficiently universal, should also apply to >>> ccTLDs. Maybe we should be consulting with ISOC and the IGF, rather than >>> with registrars and registries, in its development. >>> >>> Perhaps it is time for ALAC to take some further initiative here; is >>> anyone >>> else interested? Or is the concept of a real Charter -- one that was >>> envisioned on Page 2 of the Summit Declaration -- to be left to fade away? >>> >>> -- >>> Evan Leibovitch >>> _______________________________________________ >>> At-Large mailing list >>> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... >>> >>> At-Large Official Site:http://atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... >> >> At-Large Official Site:http://atlarge.icann.org >> >> > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... > > At-Large Official Site:http://atlarge.icann.org > > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html