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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 5:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> >> Of joy
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 10:28 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCUC input on new gTLDs and human rights
> >>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of joy
> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:08 AM To:
> >>>>>> [log in to unmask] 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/
> >>
> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQIc6+AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqWR4H/jFol3sfT6ZAZBiMM9IcRd
> >> ts
> >> L5YxhJ6LpDVJLILWO2O4yOkXFY/vt3u17g+Y+qRr+Pc+Yhhh2dD6yOg63HcDRhd
> >> I
> >> bYH01LtrPnaoC6KJqDHpcuY3Yx5aziuxSMy6LIkTJKOBzaMTd5W4rOmd7hjqzKx
> >> 0
> >> QW1eKS5fB0ihNpf2nLO8hrJBubqGf60Eehx6WK8pVNsAC7MHJiIDclnv2pzQC3
> >> 9r
> >> imqcbnjGPV1jwa0DwFjHNopScN44c2hhCOQxGqgMW/mTLqdNln9MOYjcv4j
> >> KYYyp
> >> RXipAj8WAD3UyN2nFSVrLX7LEjC6+hJN7YlVAeB+tGPUHvkUUGYJy8eQms1pP
> >> Rg=
> >> =f5bf
> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
|
