NCUC input on new gTLDs and human rights

Fri Aug 10 06:07:26 CEST 2012

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi - thanks Avri and Milton and others who have commented.
On the principles: great to get more discussion on them - thanks!
On the reference to guardianship,  Like Avri, i feel strongly that
there is a core principle there which is fundamental - and i also like
the suggestion of a reference to stewardship: that's helpful - thanks
Milton and I'd be comfortable with that.
As for the last point - the purpose was just to emphasise that, if in
doubt, we put particular emphasis on that higher aspirational
standard. it wasn't intended to override human rights. I am happy if
the prevailing principle should be human rights rather than stewardship.
Thanks again.
I will tidy up and post one for (hopefully) one last time.
....
Joy

On 10/08/2012 9:13 a.m., Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Clearly there is no consensus on this. I don't disagree that ICANN
> has some kind of responsibility for coordinating the top level of
> the domain name space and that it should do so wisely; to me this
> is a stewardship function. I reject the "guardianship" lingo (with
> its slightly militaristic overtones), as well as Postel's personal
> and idiosyncratic idea that he and he alone could decide in 1591
> that any use of domain name resources is only legitimized by
> "service to others."
>
> If you choose to believe in that God, it's fine, just don't tell
> me that it is the basic founding principle of NCUC or NCSG - it
> isn't - or that it OVERRIDES considerations of human rights and
> equity, which I think is just self-evidently absurd and wrong.
> Remember, history is full of examples of powerful dictators,
> monarchs, etc. claiming that they didn't need to pay attention to
> law, rights, etc. because they were "guardians" of the popular
> will, the True national interest, etc., etc. please let's not get
> caught in that trap.
>
> I'd be willing to retain some concept of stewardship, but last in
> line and certainly not as a principle that overrides human rights.
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss
>> [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 5:37 AM To:
>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCUC
>> input on new gTLDs and human rights
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since  it is explicit that GAC members can comment on
>> sensitivities, I think we can' t ignore them.  And of course the
>> Board should consider them as it must consider everything.  and
>> then if those sensitivities run against HR, they should be
>> tossed. So as opposed to removing the language, I recommend
>> strengthening the condition for tossing it after consideration.
>>
>> As for the Guardianship, I disagree. As I note in comments, this
>> is a critical role of ICANN and of the I* bodies.  It does not
>> subordinate HR and Equity, it is a mark of our responsibility
>> toward those things. Of course we have to guard that these
>> organization live up to HR as a primary role and that is in a
>> large extent what NCUC does.  But if not for guardianship of the
>> Internet, there is no purpose in ICANN existing and in us
>> finding their work worth participating in.  I am strongly in
>> favor of leaving this and RFC1591 as a touchstone of our
>> responsibilities in the letter.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 8 Aug 2012, at 16:48, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Joy, The statement is massively improved. I added a
>>> few more comments.
>>>
>>> I would still like to get rid of the idea that "Consideration
>>> of
>> applications for new TLDs should be mindful of sensitivities."
>> Any such consideration constitutes a restraint on freedom of
>> expression and while de facto the board and GAC will be mindful
>> they don't need any help or encouragement from us.
>>>
>>> My only major concern pertains to the "Guardianship" principle
>>> - where
>> the heck did that come from, and why are we recycling ancient
>> RFCs drafted by computer scientists pretending to be global
>> legislators? And why, how, who and when did that principle get
>> elevated to the Master Principle that subordinates all the
>> others, including Human Rights and Equity????
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss
>>>> [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of joy
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 10:28 PM To:
>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss]
>>>> NCUC input on new gTLDs and human rights
>>>>
> Hi again - a revised draft is now available here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17ijURQYy1uKh27NyDEWh_V1zhCDCI
> vVtdzUEJLaNmyE/edit
>
> To comment and to view all comments please click on the "comment"
>>> link.
> Previous comments are marked as resolved where these have been
> incorporated directly into or otherwise included in the draft. The
>  one issue that was not moving towards agreement was removed (this
> was in relation to generic gTLDs). Any additional comments on
> issues that may have been missed such as IDNs or any other general
> human rights issues? Please make any comments by Friday 10th so
> that this can be finalised by Saturday 11th. Finally, given that
> NPOC members have also commented on this should it now be submitted
> as a NCSG comment? Thanks again to those who have commented so
> far.
>
> Joy
>
>
> On 6/08/2012 4:11 p.m., joy wrote:
>>>>>> Hi again - thanks for the on-going discussion on the
>>>>>> google document. We have some areas of consensus and
>>>>>> some of on-going debate, but no new issues in the last
>>>>>> few days. On that basis I will prepare a more detailed
>>>>>> draft suitable for submission and circulate this to the
>>>>>> list aroudn Wednesday this week. Comments are due no
>>>>>> later than Sunday 12 August. cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27/07/2012 1:54 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>>>>>> I see only one "anonymous" comment: "This is wrong,
>>>>>>> and is a claim that has no basis in competition law or
>>>>>>> economics." Is this it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/26/2012 06:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>>>>>> I made some comments. I have some serious problems
>>>>>>>> with two of the things in the statement as it now
>>>>>>>> stands:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss
>>>>>>>>> [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf
>>>>>>>>> Of joy Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:08 AM To:
>>>>>>>>> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject:
>>>>>>>>> [NCSG-Discuss] NCUC input on new gTLDs and human
>>>>>>>>> rights
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all - following on from the NCUC discussions on
>>>>>>>> this list and at the recent meeting in Prague, NCUC
>>>>>>>> agreed to develop a comment on new gTLDs and human
>>>>>>>> rights. The open comment period closes on 12 August.
>>>>>>>> To start discussion on the comment I've prepared a
>>>>>>>> draft outline of some key points that can be
>>>>>>>> developed with inputs from those interested. To do so
>>>>>>>> I've created a google doc which anyone can view and
>>>>>>>> comment on by clicking the comment link here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17ijURQYy1uKh27NyDEWh_V1zhCDCI
> vVtdzUE
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
> JLaNmyE/edit
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You do not need a google account to view and comment
>>>>>>>> on this. I will be monitoring the comments
>>>>>>>> periodically and helping NCUC to update the comment
>>>>>>>> by the deadline.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks to those who expressed interest in supporting
>>>>>>>> this initiative.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQJIj+AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqd38H/12j+pKeUin1EWEozhTfrmWC
ghN5Kc1mAxdI2TQ22CgckmlKl1vyJC9dJcngfyMVRwSPlCJxgVPYcRU/pGjpIu2m
O/WTSPQ+r/sWgEqKfgNlqFTsRMO/vxHeve7pppTM+9eRCWUJnu4x65ELXI8bg6GN
AUVtmb4wpM9oC5WXy8iEauL7HOtKM2Rser6W39meapFHa4B2jv8mf/TD53k7ptJX
l1t+sYYqAOfOqviZ34cUqRVa6gkyjX+urXc/n6m8UGkjHFsA864w430eY5kki1ED
qEXqV9cl2aHy9WL0zBM/95BxHhaGIBHKuFh4CYf+rm0I3ND2AFNjTWrSSH9YZW4=
=9y9H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----