Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Re: ICANN and human rights followup to meeting in LA From: William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> Date: December 2, 2014 at 9:23:23 AM GMT+1 Cc: Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel@gmail.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>, Thomas Schneider <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>, Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, "Mark.Carvell@culture.gsi.gov.uk" <Mark.Carvell@culture.gsi.gov.uk>, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com>, "Nicolas.Rollier@bakom.admin.ch" <Nicolas.Rollier@bakom.admin.ch>, Roy Balleste <rballeste@stu.edu>, "RPEREZGA@minetur.es" <RPEREZGA@minetur.es>, "wolf@eurodig.org" <wolf@eurodig.org>, Lee Hibbard <Lee.HIBBARD@coe.int>, "mallory@apc.org" <mallory@apc.org>, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> To: Joy Liddicoat <joy@apc.org>
Hi
On Dec 2, 2014, at 1:29 AM, joy <joy@apc.org <mailto:joy@apc.org>> wrote:
Am a bit surprised by this Bill. There is not a doubt that ICANN impacts freedom of expression and privacy, right?! Neils: I am afraid Bill is correct and in my view we have a severe clash of understanding in ICANN - as human rights advocates, you and I both know that 'human rights' includes FX and privacy. But in ICANN, dominated as it is by US folks, they have no clue what 'human rights' are: honestly. They might have a vague idea what 'civil rights' are, but in my experience most are quite ignorant about 'human rights' and think these are to do with poverty and clean water or social security - so there is sometimes a kind of intellectual allergic reaction or a more mild sense of being non-plussed about how human rights are relevant. This seems to also attach to the politics of the issue as well.
Err…if I may offer two small amendments. I’d say "dominated as it is by business and technical folks.” I at least have no evidence that business and technical folks with passport x are systematically less aware than business and technical folks with passport y. And I think it’s possible people have can have a baseline understanding and appreciation of human rights but simply have never heard or engaged the case that that decisions about name collisions, cc redelegations, IRTP, or the zillion other issues dealt with in ICANN can clearly and negatively impact rights (other than trademark). The burden there is on us as much as it is on them. Like many siloed groups and subgroupings we talk among ourselves and reinforce each others' views and then conclude that what we think should be obvious to others who work in completely different spaces. Expecting that everyone has read the 40 page COE paper (on which some people within e.g. civil society disagree in parts), had a eureka moment, and is ready to get started on a fix is unrealistic.
Aside from lining up the room (really urgent), I’d suggest the first order of business ought to be to prepare a FAQ. Two pages of concise problem statements with illustrative examples of policies and practices that raise HR concerns and ends with a few options for tackling the problem, ranging from lowest impact in terms of institutionalization to more demanding and systematic. Something like this we could circulate in a number of ways (e.g. SOACSGC chairs could be asked to share with their respective tribes) to raise awareness and generate interest in a meeting to discuss.
It’d be important for the FAQ to make clear what we are and are not focusing on. In this regard, at the risk of sounding like an Anglo-Saxon, I would reiterate the view I and some others stated in LA: we start with civil and political rights, particularly FoE and privacy, and leave aside economic and social rights and 3rd generation rights (peace, development) etc at least initially or we end up with the discussion turning into an another free range blob and debating .health again without getting anywhere. We don’t have to say the others are out of bounds or can’t be returned to later if consensus takes us there, but start with the low hanging fruit on which people can more readily see the case.
A lot of the community is still nowhere near being in the tent. I had two board members pull me aside in LA to say WTF is this human rights thing who are these people this could be a disaster, and I heard various other comments from people in governments and the community that were at a minimum, skeptical and reserved.
But isn't that exactly a reason to have that discussion in a workshop instead of in backchannels?
JL: yes, but it needs to come back to some simple concepts to help build understanding - the Europeans, Canadians, South African, Kenyan, Pakistan among others, - will understand - but my guess is that many from the US will not.
I was not arguing against having a workshop, I advocated it in LA.
Best
Bill
*********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/> william.drake@uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake@gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com> (lists), www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/> ***********************************************
*********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake@uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake@gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************