last call - infographic ICANN & Human Rights
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
Hi All, Sorry to be raising issues so late in the game. As some of you know, I am on the Registration Directory Services WG, co-chairing the Rights Protection Mechanism WG and attending as many meetings of the IGO/INGO Working Group meetings as possible. These groups are moving quickly... so life is busy! But I do need to ask about the "rights protection mechanisms" in the table and share that they are concerning from a human rights and public interest perspective. Under *Rights protection mechanisms* - *Protection of International Organization Names in all gTLDs *- there has been a lot of concern raised about this in the history of ICANN. In particular, Rafik Dammak, now chair of Noncommercial Users Constituency, then on the GNSO Council, voted Against the protection of RedCross in all gTLDs because a) there might be places where the RedCross organization was not entitled to the second level domain name, such as a future gTLD that evaluated philanthropies for their effectiveness, efficiency and amount of funds dedicated to overhead, administration and salaries of its heads and b) the idea of blocking one word at all levels has free expression ramifications that are enormous and potentially devastating... For example, ICANN's free expression advocates fought (successfully) against blanket protection for the Olympics Committee to control the use of the word "olympics" at the second level of all gTLDs -- because what would that do to the free expression rights, the free competition rights, and the rights to geographic terms if those in Greece and elsewhere could not regularly, broadly and openly use the word "olympics" in domain names to write about the history of ancient olympic games, research and visit historic Olympic sites in Greece, hike and bike in the Olympic Mountains and Olympic National Park in the US, eat at Olympic Restaurants, etc.? As in other areas, allowing different people to use the same word in different and legitimate ways in different and legitimate gTLDs makes sense... - *Curative Rights protection for IGOs/INGOs *- currently, the IGO/INGO working group of the GNSO with some very senior attorneys is working this issue through. IGOs and INGOs would like to protect not only their names, but their acronyms, and those acronyms are used many different ways by name different groups, organizations, small businesses, etc. For example, the World Health Organization would like the rights to remove domain names using WHO.COM outside of the traditional UDRP and URS processes. But Who Entertainment (WHO.COM) and the classic Who rock group might prefer to have full due process in a UDRP or URS action -- and the opportunity to prove they are using their valid marks and domain names in good faith. Please follow the work, now in its ending stages of the GNSO's IGO/INGO Working Group -- http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo-crp-access - New gTLDs subsequent round - this the Working Group that I am co-chairing with Phil Corwin and J.Scott Evans, and we are trying to figure out to what extent the special rights protection mechanisms created for New gTLDs (Trademark Clearinghouse, Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure, Trademark Notice and Sunrise Periods) are fair, balanced and should be extended to New gTLDs? It's a real open question. We have some evidence that millions of new registrants, smaller registrants, and registrants in developing countries are being turned back or "chilled" from legitimate and legal registrations in New gTLDs. Shouldn't we review what has happened with New Rights Protection Mechanisms in New gTLDs -- and how fair and balanced the rules have been -- before we advise extending them to "subsequent rounds"? Please join us in the Rights Protection Mechanism Working Group for this discussion! - Rights protection mechanism in all gTLDs -- ditto for the above. There is real question and concern that Rights Protection Mechanisms created for New gTLDs don't belong in the "legacy gTLDs" such as .COM, .ORG and .NET because they were created specifically for the special problem of the roll-out of hundreds of new gTLDs at the same time. What impact on free expression would there be to superimpose a system of rights protection mechanisms never intended for the older gTLDs to them so that the same protection exists in "all gTLDs"? Dangers huge -- questions being explored also by the Rights Protection Mechanism WG - and we invite you to join us! In light of the dangers, could these provisions be rephrased or removed? Tx much for reading! 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
I agree with Kathy. Thanks, Robin
On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:58 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry to be raising issues so late in the game. As some of you know, I am on the Registration Directory Services WG, co-chairing the Rights Protection Mechanism WG and attending as many meetings of the IGO/INGO Working Group meetings as possible. These groups are moving quickly... so life is busy! But I do need to ask about the "rights protection mechanisms" in the table and share that they are concerning from a human rights and public interest perspective. Under Rights protection mechanisms
- Protection of International Organization Names in all gTLDs - there has been a lot of concern raised about this in the history of ICANN. In particular, Rafik Dammak, now chair of Noncommercial Users Constituency, then on the GNSO Council, voted Against the protection of RedCross in all gTLDs because a) there might be places where the RedCross organization was not entitled to the second level domain name, such as a future gTLD that evaluated philanthropies for their effectiveness, efficiency and amount of funds dedicated to overhead, administration and salaries of its heads and b) the idea of blocking one word at all levels has free expression ramifications that are enormous and potentially devastating... For example, ICANN's free expression advocates fought (successfully) against blanket protection for the Olympics Committee to control the use of the word "olympics" at the second level of all gTLDs -- because what would that do to the free expression rights, the free competition rights, and the rights to geographic terms if those in Greece and elsewhere could not regularly, broadly and openly use the word "olympics" in domain names to write about the history of ancient olympic games, research and visit historic Olympic sites in Greece, hike and bike in the Olympic Mountains and Olympic National Park in the US, eat at Olympic Restaurants, etc.? As in other areas, allowing different people to use the same word in different and legitimate ways in different and legitimate gTLDs makes sense... - Curative Rights protection for IGOs/INGOs - currently, the IGO/INGO working group of the GNSO with some very senior attorneys is working this issue through. IGOs and INGOs would like to protect not only their names, but their acronyms, and those acronyms are used many different ways by name different groups, organizations, small businesses, etc. For example, the World Health Organization would like the rights to remove domain names using WHO.COM outside of the traditional UDRP and URS processes. But Who Entertainment (WHO.COM) and the classic Who rock group might prefer to have full due process in a UDRP or URS action -- and the opportunity to prove they are using their valid marks and domain names in good faith. Please follow the work, now in its ending stages of the GNSO's IGO/INGO Working Group -- http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo-crp-access <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo-crp-access>
- New gTLDs subsequent round - this the Working Group that I am co-chairing with Phil Corwin and J.Scott Evans, and we are trying to figure out to what extent the special rights protection mechanisms created for New gTLDs (Trademark Clearinghouse, Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure, Trademark Notice and Sunrise Periods) are fair, balanced and should be extended to New gTLDs? It's a real open question. We have some evidence that millions of new registrants, smaller registrants, and registrants in developing countries are being turned back or "chilled" from legitimate and legal registrations in New gTLDs. Shouldn't we review what has happened with New Rights Protection Mechanisms in New gTLDs -- and how fair and balanced the rules have been -- before we advise extending them to "subsequent rounds"? Please join us in the Rights Protection Mechanism Working Group for this discussion! - Rights protection mechanism in all gTLDs -- ditto for the above. There is real question and concern that Rights Protection Mechanisms created for New gTLDs don't belong in the "legacy gTLDs" such as .COM, .ORG and .NET because they were created specifically for the special problem of the roll-out of hundreds of new gTLDs at the same time. What impact on free expression would there be to superimpose a system of rights protection mechanisms never intended for the older gTLDs to them so that the same protection exists in "all gTLDs"? Dangers huge -- questions being explored also by the Rights Protection Mechanism WG - and we invite you to join us! In light of the dangers, could these provisions be rephrased or removed? Tx much for reading! 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights>
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
Hi Kathy, I think that these things are in the graph because they are perceived as being potential risk for human rights. It is by no means implied that these RPMs are human rights or any such thing. So am not sure why they should be removed. I think they are in there for exactly the reasons you stated. Or am I missing something? Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 06/07/2016 08:06 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
I agree with Kathy.
Thanks, Robin
On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:58 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry to be raising issues so late in the game. As some of you know, I am on the Registration Directory Services WG, co-chairing the Rights Protection Mechanism WG and attending as many meetings of the IGO/INGO Working Group meetings as possible. These groups are moving quickly... so life is busy! But I do need to ask about the "rights protection mechanisms" in the table and share that they are concerning from a human rights and public interest perspective.
Under *Rights protection mechanisms*
- *Protection of International Organization Names in all gTLDs *- there has been a lot of concern raised about this in the history of ICANN. In particular, Rafik Dammak, now chair of Noncommercial Users Constituency, then on the GNSO Council, voted Against the protection of RedCross in all gTLDs because a) there might be places where the RedCross organization was not entitled to the second level domain name, such as a future gTLD that evaluated philanthropies for their effectiveness, efficiency and amount of funds dedicated to overhead, administration and salaries of its heads and b) the idea of blocking one word at all levels has free expression ramifications that are enormous and potentially devastating...
For example, ICANN's free expression advocates fought (successfully) against blanket protection for the Olympics Committee to control the use of the word "olympics" at the second level of all gTLDs -- because what would that do to the free expression rights, the free competition rights, and the rights to geographic terms if those in Greece and elsewhere could not regularly, broadly and openly use the word "olympics" in domain names to write about the history of ancient olympic games, research and visit historic Olympic sites in Greece, hike and bike in the Olympic Mountains and Olympic National Park in the US, eat at Olympic Restaurants, etc.? As in other areas, allowing different people to use the same word in different and legitimate ways in different and legitimate gTLDs makes sense...
- *Curative Rights protection for IGOs/INGOs *- currently, the IGO/INGO working group of the GNSO with some very senior attorneys is working this issue through. IGOs and INGOs would like to protect not only their names, but their acronyms, and those acronyms are used many different ways by name different groups, organizations, small businesses, etc. For example, the World Health Organization would like the rights to remove domain names using WHO.COM <http://who.com> outside of the traditional UDRP and URS processes. But Who Entertainment (WHO.COM <http://who.com>) and the classic Who rock group might prefer to have full due process in a UDRP or URS action -- and the opportunity to prove they are using their valid marks and domain names in good faith.
Please follow the work, now in its ending stages of the GNSO's IGO/INGO Working Group -- http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo-crp-access
- New gTLDs subsequent round - this the Working Group that I am co-chairing with Phil Corwin and J.Scott Evans, and we are trying to figure out to what extent the special rights protection mechanisms created for New gTLDs (Trademark Clearinghouse, Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure, Trademark Notice and Sunrise Periods) are fair, balanced and should be extended to New gTLDs? It's a real open question. We have some evidence that millions of new registrants, smaller registrants, and registrants in developing countries are being turned back or "chilled" from legitimate and legal registrations in New gTLDs. Shouldn't we review what has happened with New Rights Protection Mechanisms in New gTLDs -- and how fair and balanced the rules have been -- before we advise extending them to "subsequent rounds"?
Please join us in the Rights Protection Mechanism Working Group for this discussion!
- Rights protection mechanism in all gTLDs -- ditto for the above. There is real question and concern that Rights Protection Mechanisms created for New gTLDs don't belong in the "legacy gTLDs" such as .COM, .ORG and .NET because they were created specifically for the special problem of the roll-out of hundreds of new gTLDs at the same time. What impact on free expression would there be to superimpose a system of rights protection mechanisms never intended for the older gTLDs to them so that the same protection exists in "all gTLDs"? Dangers huge -- questions being explored also by the Rights Protection Mechanism WG - and we invite you to join us!
In light of the dangers, could these provisions be rephrased or removed? Tx much for reading! 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 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
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
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. - 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. - Glossary: a) In INGOs there is a space missing and a typo in the word organisation. b) Add " DANE" to the glossary. c) Put the glossary in alphabetic order. - 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. - 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. - 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... 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. Once again, great job and looking forward to the discussion on the visualisation in Helsinki! Best wishes, Marilia On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Kathy Kleiman <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 listcc-humanrights@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
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
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
Hi Niels, Tx you for the continuing discussion. But still some confusion. For example, the Rights Protection Mechanism WG is not also reviewing the curative rights protection mechanisms for IGO and INGO or protection of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs. These are Working Groups of their own. (Way too much work for one group!) Might I suggest, and keeping in mind the suggestion of Marilia, that the first "Rights Protection Mechanism WG" (over DNSSEC) delete "WG" and include: Rights Protection Mechanisms --> - Review of the protection of International Organization Names in all gTLDs -- *** -- *** - PDP to review all RPMs in all gTLDs Best, Kathy On 6/15/2016 3:47 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
Very valid point, great suggestion. Will implement :) PS Also found 9 little points yesterday after printing that are integrated in the next version (mostly typos and visual stuff) Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 06/16/2016 10:56 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi Niels,
Tx you for the continuing discussion. But still some confusion. For example, the Rights Protection Mechanism WG is not also reviewing the curative rights protection mechanisms for IGO and INGO or protection of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs. These are Working Groups of their own. (Way too much work for one group!)
Might I suggest, and keeping in mind the suggestion of Marilia, that the first "Rights Protection Mechanism WG" (over DNSSEC) delete "WG" and include:
Rights Protection Mechanisms -->
- Review of the protection of International Organization Names in all gTLDs -- *** -- *** - PDP to review all RPMs in all gTLDs
Best, Kathy
On 6/15/2016 3:47 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list 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
Dear all, Please find attached the last version of the vizualization that we will discuss in the call in a few hours. I implemented all Kathy's changes, hunted down some typos and made it overall cleaner. Looking forward to discuss. Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 06/17/2016 12:52 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Very valid point, great suggestion. Will implement :)
PS Also found 9 little points yesterday after printing that are integrated in the next version (mostly typos and visual stuff)
Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
On 06/16/2016 10:56 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi Niels,
Tx you for the continuing discussion. But still some confusion. For example, the Rights Protection Mechanism WG is not also reviewing the curative rights protection mechanisms for IGO and INGO or protection of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs. These are Working Groups of their own. (Way too much work for one group!)
Might I suggest, and keeping in mind the suggestion of Marilia, that the first "Rights Protection Mechanism WG" (over DNSSEC) delete "WG" and include:
Rights Protection Mechanisms -->
- Review of the protection of International Organization Names in all gTLDs -- *** -- *** - PDP to review all RPMs in all gTLDs
Best, Kathy
On 6/15/2016 3:47 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list 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
Hello All, Is there a call today? May apologies, if I miss the email. Manny thanks, Beth -----Original Message----- From: cc-humanrights-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cc-humanrights-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 8:47 AM To: cc-humanrights@icann.org Subject: Re: [cc-humanrights] last call - infographic ICANN & Human Rights Dear all, Please find attached the last version of the vizualization that we will discuss in the call in a few hours. I implemented all Kathy's changes, hunted down some typos and made it overall cleaner. Looking forward to discuss. Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 06/17/2016 12:52 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Very valid point, great suggestion. Will implement :)
PS Also found 9 little points yesterday after printing that are integrated in the next version (mostly typos and visual stuff)
Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
On 06/16/2016 10:56 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi Niels,
Tx you for the continuing discussion. But still some confusion. For example, the Rights Protection Mechanism WG is not also reviewing the curative rights protection mechanisms for IGO and INGO or protection of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs. These are Working Groups of their own. (Way too much work for one group!)
Might I suggest, and keeping in mind the suggestion of Marilia, that the first "Rights Protection Mechanism WG" (over DNSSEC) delete "WG" and include:
Rights Protection Mechanisms -->
- Review of the protection of International Organization Names in all gTLDs -- *** -- *** - PDP to review all RPMs in all gTLDs
Best, Kathy
On 6/15/2016 3:47 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list 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
participants (5)
-
Beth Bacon -
Kathy Kleiman -
Marilia Maciel -
Niels ten Oever -
Robin Gross