[NCUC-DISCUSS] Proposals for Rightscon

Sat Nov 26 13:36:42 CET 2016

Hi Farzi,

I support proposal 1 and 3 - agree with Ayden and Avri's point.
Please let me know if you need any help, I would be glad to assist.

All the best,

2016-11-26 4:02 GMT-02:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>:

> Hopefully if you do a topic similar to what happened in Hyderabad, you
> will have someone in the lead better informed about ICANN and better able
> to hold his/her own amongst registrars and registries than the EFF
> representative was.  I like Mitch and I like EFF but his take on the issue
> failed to distinguish properly between truly private contracting and
> ICANN-attributable policy making and he got his butt kicked as a result.
>
>
>
> I’d be happy to help keep such a panel properly focused and aware of the
> nuances of the issue.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak
>
> I think the proposal 3 can be something similar to High Interest Topic
> session we had in Hyderabad (https://schedule.icann.org/
> event/8g4p/dns-and-content-regulation-ncuc-group) . that is definitely
> needs some changes and adjustment to the formats used in Rightscon.
>
>
>
> for this year edition of rightscon, we had session about Domain names
> policies in general with Robin and Mitch from EFF. We covered  new gTLD,
> whois, UDRP etc https://rightscon.sched.org/event/6Ih0/never-
> underestimate-domain-names-policies. so a more specific topic would be
> helpful and natural continuity of what we did before.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
> 2016-11-26 2:42 GMT+09:00 Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de>:
>
> Hi Farzy, hi Ayden
>
> (and hi all)
>
> Agree that the 3rd proposal might fit the best - it's one of our current
> concerns at ICANN but it also has a much broader implications than within
> ICANN spaces (and you put it into a broader perspective of IG anyway).
> There are already enough examples how voluntary practices (including
> content regulation) can become commonly accepted guidelines and then
> binding obligations. Very timely topic - we all know this; should be a very
> interesting session.
>
> I find Ayden's proposal also worth to discuss. It will be a more focused
> topic since there is a lot to discuss already but also a forward looking
> theme to submit. Could be a great choice.
>
> If we are to submit a couple of them, I think proposal number 3 would be
> my top choice, and then either RDS/WHOIS and number two (on MS model) from
> you.
>
> Ready to take part in further elaborating if necessary. I also hope there
> will be NCUC members available to carry out the outreach at the Rightscon,
> assume this is also the idea behind the submission?
>
> Thanks for bringing this forward!
>
> Cheers
>
> Tanya
>
>
>
> On 25/11/16 16:02, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>
> Thanks for putting forward these proposals, Farzi. I like proposals 2 and
> 3 the most, but of those two, I feel like proposal 3 would be the better
> fit for Rightscon.
>
>
>
> Another idea would be to convene a panel on the state of the Registration
> Directory Service; where the WHOIS protocol has come from, what WHOIS is
> today, why it is problematic from the perspective of privacy, and how it is
> evolving – for better or for worse.
>
>
>
> I think that Rightscon would a great forum for this conversation to take
> place, because it attracts a diverse audience of policy and advocacy
> professionals who are fighting censorship, mass surveillance, and Internet
> access obstacles in different regions of the world. This is an audience
> that is as committed as we are to protecting vulnerable populations from
> cyber attacks, doxing, and swatting – all behaviours that the WHOIS
> protocol, in its present form, unfortunately harbours – and it would be
> great to have these voices on our side, ideally participating in future
> public consultation exercises on how the RDS evolves.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Ayden Férdeline
>
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Proposals for Rightscon
>
> Local Time: 25 November 2016 4:31 PM
>
> UTC Time: 25 November 2016 14:31
>
> From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>
> To: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>
>
>
> Hi NCUC members,
>
>
>
> Rightscon deadline for proposal submission is on 5th December, and we need
> to draft a couple of proposals to talk about issues that NCUC finds
> relevant at this point.
>
>
>
>  NCUC organized a session at RightsCon 2016 in San Francisco. I think a
> good opportunity.
>
>
>
> Here is the website: http://rightscon.org/
>
>
>
> I have three suggestions and welcome other suggestions relevant to NCUC's
> mission, and edits and comments on these proposals to be submitted.  We
> should only submit one proposal as NCUC and the final description should go
> into more detail.
>
>
>
> *Proposal 1. Jurisdictional issues *and domain name administration - we
> will talk about how ICANN's jurisdiction affects domain name policies and
> if it restricts access to applying for new gTLDs as well as affecting
> domain name rights.
>
>
>
> *Proposal 2. Adopting Multistakeholder Processes on the Internet: The Case
> of ICANN*
>
>
>
> ICANN is a private corporation that makes policies affecting domain name
> registrants globally. Unlike some other Internet corporations and platforms
> that take decisions unilaterally, ICANN uses a multistakeholder process for
> policymaking. Multistakeholder governance is a positive aspect of ICANN
> governance process. But sometimes there might be a circumvention of a
> process in generating the policies which might hamper the multistakeholder
> nature of ICANN governance. Considering the positive and negative aspects
> of ICANN's governance mechanism, the session will address the following
> question:  Can ICANN's multistakeholder model be used on other platforms
> and even social platforms to govern their process?
>
>
>
> *Proposal 3. Content Regulation and private  ordering at Internet
> governance institutions*
>
>
>
> Private ordering is the generation, implementation and enforcement of
> policies by a private entity.   It has been a phenomenon on the Internet
> since the governments' oversight was weak or non-existent. Private ordering
> is used in internet governance institutions such as ICANN which mainly
> carry out their policies and implement them through a multistakeholder
> process and contractual agreements. Such agreements and policies must not
> lead ICANN to become a content regulator on the Internet. This session will
> discuss: What is content regulation on the Internet and does ICANN's
> policies affect the content on the Internet. If it does how so and why and
> how can we prevent ICANN from having such a role.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>

-- 
LOUISE MARIE HUREL

*Researcher*

Center for Technology and Society at Getúlio Vargas Foundation

Center for Political and Strategic Studies at the Naval War College - Brazil
Skype: louise.dias
+55 21 993 239 787
louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161126/cf45336a/attachment-0002.html>