Re: [At-Large] Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now?
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. 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> 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...
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
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
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Le 25/01/2010 09:31, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy a écrit :
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'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? Perhaps its member's experiences in the field could catalyse the crystallisation of such a charter? 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> 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...
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
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
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 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
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.
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. 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. -- Evan Leibovitch evan@telly.org
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
participants (3)
-
Evan Leibovitch -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy