Hi all, Based on the previous comments, and new version attached. Looking forward to your comments. Best, Niels PS Thanks again Giulia for the great job and quick turnaround! Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 06/14/2016 10:27 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Thanks Marilia,
This is great, a quick repsonse inline:
On 06/10/2016 04:11 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
Hi Niels and all,
Congratulations to Niels and the team working on the visualisation. It is a great work and I find the infographic extremely informative. I have just a few observations:
- The line that goes from the UDHR to second generation and then to particular instruments is not clear, because some of the instruments, like the ICCPR are part of the first generation of HR, while the ICESCR is indeed document that consolidates second generation rights. We need a different breakout if we want to speak of the generations.
This is a big mistake of mine. Am very happy you caught it.
Perhaps we could do this differently, because I am not sure how useful it is to differentiate between different generations of rights.
- On the human rights principles section, maybe it would be useful to mention the distinction from the responsibility to protect and respect, which is something mentioned in several occasions in our discussions in ICANN.
Based on this and the previous remark I made a quick sketch, let me know what you think (attached)
- Glossary: a) In INGOs there is a space missing and a typo in the word organisation.
Giulia (cc), can you take this up?
b) Add " DANE" to the glossary.
DANE: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities
c) Put the glossary in alphabetic order.
Will do
- FoE stream: --> new gTLD program --> new gTLD subsequent round (WG). The WG is looking at a wide scope of issues, not only FoE and the title of the WG (new gTLD subsequent round) in column 3 is not explanatory of any particular FoE issue.
Let's change 'New gTLD programme' (in all instances) into 'New gTLD subsequent procedures WG', and then drop the latter from the third column.
- A suggestion came from CoE in the last ICANN meeting that we should rearrange the order in which we list the rights, maybe mirroring the order that they appear in the UDHR. I think it is a valuable suggestion. In any case, I would not start the list with due process, maybe it is good to start with a human right that is more widely " accepted" and understood in the ICANN space.
OK, let's do the order of the second column like this:
Right to Privacy (add: Right to) Right to Freedom of Association (add: Right to) Economic, social and cultural rights Right to Freedom of expession (add: Right to) Right to Security Participation, includion, equality and non-discrimination Due process
- Some of the ICANN policies of processes are actually active WGs. When this is the case, it would be good to indicate that clearly ex: new gTLD subsequent procedures WG, Rights protection mechanisms in all gTLDs WG, etc...
Agreed, let's add WG to these specific ones:
Rights Protection Mechanism WG New gTLD subsequent procedures WG
Reacting to Kathy's suggestion, I believe we should strictly follow the name of the policy or WG we are talking about. So, yes, if they have "Review" in the title, I would retain this word. But I would not add words like "balanced" if they are not in the official title.
I hope it adresses Kathy's concern if we add WG, so that it is clear we use the official terms.
I do share Kathy's concern about the naming of some WGs, but I don;t think that is something we should address in this graph.
We can change:
Curative Rights protection for IGOs / INGOs
into:
Review of curative rights protections in IGO/INGOs in gTLDs
Once again, great job and looking forward to the discussion on the visualisation in Helsinki!
Thanks again,
Niels
Best wishes, Marilia
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
Hi Niels and All,
The Rights Protection Mechanism listing seem a little more directive than the other phrases -- and could be read to urge specific positions rather than just listing the ICANN proceedings that are looking at the issues. Can we be a bit more neutral in our phrasing? I would recommend:
- Review of appropriate protections for IGOs/INGOs in gTLDs
- Review of balanced curative rights protections in IGO/INGOs in gTLDs
- Review of all rights protection mechanisms currently in gTLDs
- Review of balanced rights protection mechanisms for future new gTLD rounds
This will avoid misinterpretation... tx you! Best regards, Kathy
On 6/7/2016 9:49 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear all,
I have integrated your comments and suggestions as well as I could and I think we have a very nice info-graphic right now that we can present in Helsinki.
So I would like to do a last call to see whether you all can live with this.
Of course this will remain a working document, but it would be great if we can show this in Helsinki as work of the CCWP HR.
Looking forward to hear your comments, questions and/or suggestions.
Best,
Niels
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org <mailto:cc-humanrights@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org <mailto:cc-humanrights@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights