NCUC input on new gTLDs and human rights

Fri Aug 10 16:13:36 CEST 2012

Joy,
Tx for the incredible job on these comments. I think they read well, and
contain information everyone in ICANN should read. In additional to
submitting this as a comment, may I suggest that our NCSG chair send a
personal copy of the full comments to Heather Dryden, Chair of the GAC
from Canada, Suzanne Radell, US GAC Representative, and Mark Carvell, UK
GAC (and any other GAC members people recommend)? These three are
leaders of the GAC and its agenda, and very influential in the positions
and directions it takes.  A copy directly to them will likely be read
closely.

Here are a few edits I would recommend to underscore the very timely
value of the new UN Human Rights resolution (which I have been working
on for another matter...). Proposed inserts in brackets []:

'ICANN must take notice of the United Nations Human Rights Council
resolution on human rights and the internet:
http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/19/64/51/6999c512.pdf By this
resolution, [passed only a few weeks ago, on June 29, 2012, 85]UN Member
States, [from all regions of the world] including [many][delete: some of
the] governments in GAC, have affirmed by consensus that  "the same
human rights people have offline must also be protected online". #GAC is
not a human rights body and should not give ICANN advice which
contradicts this UN Human Rights Council position. Nor should individual
GAC members given advice to ICANN which contradicts their stated
positions in the UNHRC on internet related human rights issues. GAC
advice which does either of these must not be taken into account by ICANN.

Joy, tx again for awesome job and a great comment contribution,
Kath (Kleiman):
> -----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-----

--

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120810/386676ab/attachment-0001.html>