[NCUC-DISCUSS] Proposals for Rightscon

Sun Nov 27 00:05:43 CET 2016

Hi everyone,

I support the second and third proposals, I find them extremely interesting
and will be happy to assist.

2016-11-26 9:36 GMT-03:00 Louise Marie Hurel <louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com>:

> 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/ev
>> ent/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/ev
>> ent/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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161126/5eb7c621/attachment-0002.html>