In attempting to document cases and examples in which ICANN is potentially impacting human rights, SG2 has focused on mapping out foreseeable harms under various heads such as free speech harms, access to medicines, the right to participation, the right to be represented, the freedom of association etc. Through our research we look to point specifically to those instances in which ICANN policies have not considered implications, like the final report of the geographic regions review working group, which says that "The Community wants to minimize any changes to the current structure", but a closer reading and analysis shows that the current geographic structure can in fact, adversely impact the ability of Internet users and organisations in some countries to associate within their actual communities in a region. We will present an analysis based on 4 topics: 1. The Final Issue Report on a PDP to review all RPMS in all gTLDs 2. Geographic Regions Review Working Group 3. Name Collisions Management Framework 4. UDRP, including the new rules that have come into effect since July 31, 2015. Best wishes, Vidushi Marda ----- On Feb 26, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm jmalcolm@eff.org wrote:
On 23/02/2016 5:10 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
I would like to request the subgroups to write up a short summary of what they will present at our session in Marakesh.
Intermediary Liability and its impact on human rights (Jeremy Malcolm) 10 minutes
It would be great if everyone listed here could write a short paragraph about the content that they would like to present (preferably even with slides) so we can decide what and how we will present to the joint session with the GAC.
"Domain name registries and registrars are encountering increasing pressure to effectively censor online speech, by means of suspending or cancelling the domain names associated with the websites that host that speech. This pressure can take the form of the threat of legal liability, but - since registrars and registries seldom actually host any infringing speech - more often there is soft pressure to comply with rightsholder and law enforcement demands. This can be even more insidious, because their compliance with such soft pressure lacks the checks and balances associated with the rule of law, such as a court-ordered takedown. The Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability speak to this situation, providing best practice guidelines to regulators, but also to intermediaries themselves about how to address third-party demands for the restriction of online speech. This presentation will critically examine how well existing industry initiatives stack up against the recommendations of the Manila Principles."
-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220 OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights