Thanks Niels, Good start by the GAC. I hope that the WG seeks the assistance of NCUC in their research so as to avoid a duplication of efforts. I found it interesting to read in "Deliverables" (page 3 of 4 , 2nd bullet, last sentence): it basically states that the GAC need not agree with the findings / recommendations of the WG. In such a case the WG would have to reconsider or revise its proposals. This provision ( or proviso) does not seem unusual except that the principles of HRs are not universal to all the members of the GAC. Some countries are known to have a poor record on HR. In otherwords the WG would probably draft a robust statement on HR ( eg right to privacy, data protection, freedom of expression , openness etc etc) which statement would bind future GAC behaviour - it'll be adopted by GAC as their position on HR for all times. How likely would member states that are known offenders of Human rights seek to agree to such a HR statement? Such a statement could be inconsistent with their national laws and policies. Lets hope that this is not the case. regards Karel On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org> wrote:
Hi all,
White smoke from the GAC, the GAC Working Group on Human Rights and International Law agreed on its Terms of Reference. Please find it attached.
Best,
Niels
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights