Thanks, folks.  I made a few small edits, mostly to tighten up the lingo on the doc.  The statement looks great to me and ready to go.  And I warmly thank the statement's drafters and editors!   Well done!

Thank you,
Robin


On Sep 10, 2014, at 3:26 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> Hi Niels,
> 
> thanks for asking, Gabrielle were asking for edits and comments and I think
> that is partly done.
> since were are late for submission NCSG policy committee should proceed
> swiftly so we can submit the comment. the comment link
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit
> 
> 
> @Joy @Robin @Avri can you please check the document quickly?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2014-09-10 18:56 GMT+09:00 Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]>:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Dear Rafik,
>> 
>> Has this been submitted?
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Niels
>> 
>> Niels ten Oever
>> Head of Digital
>> 
>> Article 19
>> www.article19.org
>> 
>> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>> 
>> On 08/29/2014 05:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi Gabrielle,
>>> 
>>> thank you very much for this effort, that is coming at perfect time
>>> just before IGF and the session there organized by council of
>>> europe about the report (Details shared by Bill few days ago)
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> 2014-08-29 23:02 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin
>>> <[log in to unmask]>:
>>> 
>>>> Hi all
>>>> 
>>>> Hope all is well. Just a quick note to say that I had a go at
>>>> summarising the various comments that have been made by various
>>>> NCSG members about the COE report on human rights. Here is a
>>>> draft:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoaChoYYmrBfo/edit
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> Your comments / edits are welcome. Let me know if there is anything else I
>>>> can do to help.
>>>> 
>>>> All the best,
>>>> 
>>>> Gabrielle
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent:
>>>> 29 July 2014 21:56 To: Gabrielle Guillemin;
>>>> [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: COE Doc open to
>>>> comments
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all - just a note to advise that I checked with Lee Hibbard at
>>>> Council of Europe on the deadline for comments. He's noted they
>>>> are aiming for a compilation of comments by 8 September. We
>>>> should try to finalise sooner if we can, though, and I'll aim to
>>>> take another look at the shared document later this week. Cheers
>>>> Joy On 25/07/2014 8:34 a.m., joy wrote:
>>>>> Thanks so much Gabrielle I am not actually sure when the
>>>>> comments are due - but will check. Regards Joy On 23/07/2014
>>>>> 10:40 p.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hope all is well. Thanks very much for all the comments on
>>>>>> the COE
>>>> document. As Marilia said, I'd be happy to contribute too but I
>>>> won't be able to do so until mid-/late August.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In the meantime, I thought it might help to get us going if
>>>>>> we have a
>>>> document that others can start working on based on comments
>>>> already received, so here is a link to a googledoc where I have
>>>> just reproduced Ed, Joy and Milton's contributions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swluHqQOEC4RZSO38if3qpBlfCDIqXjoa
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>> ChoYYmrBfo/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do get in touch if there are any technical problems with the
>>>>>> document.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hope that helps.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> All best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Gabrielle ________________________________________ From:
>>>>>> NCSG-Discuss [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of
>>>>>> joy [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 22 July 2014 22:03 To:
>>>>>> [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: COE Doc open to
>>>>>> comments
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Ed - thanks so much for this additional work through of
>>>>>> the document in detail - that is extremely helpful! Shall we
>>>>>> start a shared document and begin building the submission
>>>>>> based on these and
>>>> other inputs?
>>>>>> anyone else have time to comment? We should try and develop
>>>>>> a response soon .. also, i am still mulling over your points,
>>>>>> Ed, but a few responses below .... thanks again! Joy
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 21/07/2014 10:44 a.m., Edward Morris wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks to Joy for her usual comprehensive and erudite
>>>>>>> analysis. A few things I’d like to offer for consideration,
>>>>>>> in response both to Joy’s post and to the CoE document
>>>>>>> itself:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1.  Ordinarily I would be strongly supportive of Joy’s
>>>>>>> recommendation that ICANN be prodded to join the Global
>>>>>>> Network Initiative (GNI). I probably still am. However, I’m
>>>>>>> a bit concerned about the resignation of the Electronic
>>>>>>> Frontiers Foundation (EFF)
>>>> from the GNI in October of last year.
>>>>>>> Before proceeding with a recommendation that ICANN join the
>>>>>>> GNI, I’d suggest that we reach out to our EFF members and
>>>>>>> determine their views on the matter, given the action of
>>>>>>> their parent organization.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That's a great idea - would you like to do that? I can also
>>>>>> ask Katitza Rodriguez
>>>>>>> 2. Lee, Monika and Thomas should be thanked both for their
>>>>>>> work on this report and for the overall effort of the CoE
>>>>>>> in promoting the inclusion of human rights considerations
>>>>>>> within internet governance generally, and within ICANN
>>>>>>> specifically. There is a lot of good in this report. I want
>>>>>>> to particularly commend the authors on recognizing that
>>>>>>> domain names such as .sucks “ordinarily come within the
>>>>>>> scope of protection offered by the right of freedom of
>>>> expression”(§117).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>> 3. I agree with the author’s suggestion that a human rights
>>>>>>> advisory panel be created within ICANN (§134). NCSG member
>>>>>>> Roy Balleste has done some excellent work in this area and
>>>>>>> I’d suggest he be consulted as to whether the specific
>>>>>>> composition of the panel suggested in this report is an
>>>>>>> optimal one.
>>>>>> Great - I'd love to see this - also we did an NCUC submission
>>>>>> about 18months ago on human rights and ICANN - it's still
>>>>>> relevant imho.
>>>>>>> 4. The authors incorrectly suggest that the GAC is the
>>>>>>> “sole voice of human rights” within ICANN (§125). We should
>>>>>>> politely remind the Council of Europe that the leading
>>>>>>> voice for human rights within ICANN has never been GAC but
>>>>>>> rather has been the NCSG, it’s predecessor, and it’s member
>>>>>>> constituencies.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> quite right - it might be the sole voice for governments,
>>>>>> but certainly not for human rights!
>>>>>>> 5. The authors may be partially correct in stating the
>>>>>>> American Bill of Rights do not apply to ICANN (§9). As a
>>>>>>> corporation, it is likely that ICANN is not obligated to
>>>>>>> follow the precepts of the Bill of Rights in it’s
>>>>>>> relationships with others. I say likely, because if ICANN
>>>>>>> were construed by the courts to be a U.S. government
>>>>>>> contractor, which in some ways it currently is, ICANN could
>>>>>>> be construed as participating in state action and then
>>>>>>> would be obligated to act as if it were a state actor vis a
>>>>>>> vis third parties. In this case, the Bill of Rights would
>>>>>>> apply to ICANN in its
>>>> relationship with others.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think it is also important to note that under American
>>>>>>> law ICANN is considered a person, albeit a non-natural
>>>>>>> person, and does benefit from the protections offered by
>>>>>>> Bill of Rights. It is bound to the Bill of Rights in this
>>>>>>> way. Further, ICANN is also protected from government
>>>>>>> interference through the Declaration of Rights of the
>>>>>>> Constitution of the State of California (article 1), one of
>>>>>>> the most comprehensive statutory grants of rights that
>>>>>>> exist in the world. These are important considerations as
>>>>>>> we debate the future
>>>> legal status and location of ICANN corporate.
>>>>>> at the risk of stirring the constitutional law dragons, i
>>>>>> think a key question is also how the international
>>>>>> obligations of the US goverment relate to a corporation such
>>>>>> as ICANN
>>>>>>> 6. The suggestion that a legal model other than trademark
>>>>>>> law be considered to “address speech rights” (§117) is
>>>>>>> welcome, with the caveat that any such model must expand
>>>>>>> freedom of expression and not further restrict it. As bad
>>>>>>> as the trademark maximalist model we now have is, there are
>>>>>>> many legal models far more dangerous for ICANN to adhere
>>>>>>> to, and open-ended recommendations in this regard should
>>>>>>> best be avoided lest they be used by those favoring a more
>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>> speech model.
>>>>>> hhmmm - maybe we could toss around some more ideas here ...
>>>>>> via the shared doc?
>>>>>>> 7. The authors recognize the difficulty defining and
>>>>>>> actualizing in policy the term “public interest” (§115). As
>>>>>>> they acknowledge, it is a vague term “providing neither
>>>>>>> guidance nor constraint on ICANN’s
>>>> actions”
>>>>>>> (§115). They then suggest we need to “flesh out the
>>>>>>> concept” of global public interest to strengthen
>>>>>>> accountability and transparency within ICANN (§115).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I’d suggest we move away from use of the term “public
>>>>>>> interest” in all regards, as it’s imprecise definition
>>>>>>> leads to more problems than it solves. I’m particularly
>>>>>>> nonplused by the positioning of the concepts of
>>>>>>> accountability and transparency as a seeming subset of
>>>> “public interest”
>>>>>>> (115).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Accountability and transparency are practices ICANN needs
>>>>>>> to embrace regardless of the “public interest”, whatever it
>>>>>>> is. These twin concepts strengthen both the ICANN community
>>>>>>> and ICANN corporate. An attitude that transparency and
>>>>>>> accountability are something that must be done to
>>>>>>> strengthen ICANN externally (e.g. in the public interest)
>>>>>>> should be rejected in favor of an acknowledgement that such
>>>>>>> processes strengthen ICANN internally.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Any benefit to the nebulous “public interest” is welcome,
>>>>>>> but the principle reason for ICANN to conduct it’s affairs
>>>>>>> in a transparent and accountable manner is that it
>>>>>>> strengthens both ICANN the institution and ICANN the
>>>>>>> community.  It is self-interest, not public interest, which
>>>>>>> should drive ICANN to function in a manner as transparent
>>>>>>> and accountable as possible.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We need to reject any suggestion that accountability and
>>>>>>> transparency are dependent variables subject to whatever it
>>>>>>> is that “public interest” is determined to be. They stand
>>>>>>> on their own.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I do think ICANN should be as transparent and accountable as
>>>>>> possible and I agree that transparency and accountability
>>>>>> should not be dependent variables, but I don't have the same
>>>>>> negative reaction to "public interest" - on the contrary, I
>>>>>> find it a useful concept, especially in administrative law as
>>>>>> a way to counter the power imbalances between private
>>>>>> interests and those of the wider communit(ies) which States
>>>>>> have obligations to protect - also because the notion of
>>>>>> public law and State obligations in the public arena is a
>>>>>> core component of the international human rights framework
>>>>>> (which distinguishes between public and private law for
>>>>>> example). So I would not want to negate it in the context of
>>>>>> responding to the CoE paper nor in thinking through how this
>>>>>> is relevant to ICANN.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 8. I am concerned about the attempt of the authors to
>>>>>>> position “hate speech” as an accepted derogation from free
>>>>>>> expression norms. This is not something that is generally
>>>>>>> accepted in the human rights community, but rather is a
>>>>>>> controversial notion that provokes rather heated and
>>>>>>> emotional argumentation amongst erstwhile allies.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We need to reject any notion that ICANN, in the guise of
>>>>>>> obeying human rights norms, should police speech or in any
>>>>>>> way deny domain name applications because they may run
>>>>>>> afoul of ‘hate speech’
>>>> principles.
>>>>>>> This is in keeping with the longstanding tradition of this
>>>>>>> SG to oppose efforts of ICANN to regulate content or
>>>>>>> speech.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My personal view is that hate speech laws are not
>>>>>>> justifiable in any society or institution with any sort of
>>>>>>> serious commitment to the principles of free speech. I know
>>>>>>> that there are many within our SG supportive of my views in
>>>>>>> this regard; I suspect there may be members that differ.
>>>>>>> Regardless of specific views on the issue, I hope we can
>>>>>>> all agree that ICANN is not the institution that should be
>>>>>>> determining what ‘hate speech’ is and then enforcing its
>>>> determination.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The authors acknowledge that “despite its frequent use,
>>>>>>> there is no clear or unique understanding of what is ‘hate
>>>>>>> speech’, and the definitions and conceptions vary in
>>>>>>> different countries” (§45). They then recognize that the
>>>>>>> European Court of Human Rights has not defined the term in
>>>>>>> order that it’s reasoning, “is not confined within
>>>>>>> definitions that could limit its action in future
>>>>>>> cases”(§46). Given the complexity of the issues, the
>>>>>>> authors suggest that ICANN needs to regularly consult with
>>>>>>> the Council of Europe (§46). I’d suggest that ICANN should
>>>>>>> only do so if the same opportunity is given to
>>>>>>> intergovernmental organizations from all the
>>>> world’s regions. Europe should not receive special
>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The authors should be credited with attempting to create
>>>>>>> unity out of the plurality of opinions and views relating
>>>>>>> to the proposed hate speech derogation from the universally
>>>>>>> recognized right of free expression. Upon close scrutiny,
>>>>>>> though, they cannot be said to have
>>>> accomplished their goal.
>>>>>>> Take, for example, their references to Article two of the
>>>>>>> Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on
>>>>>>> Cybercrime, as they attempted to define some portion of
>>>>>>> ‘hate crime’.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The Additional Protocol cannot be considered part of the
>>>>>>> universal human rights acquis. The numbers are pretty
>>>>>>> stark: Of the seventeen non Council of Europe signatories
>>>>>>> to the Cybercrime Convention only two have ratified the
>>>>>>> Additional Protocol. Of even greater significance, of the
>>>>>>> forty-seven members of the Council of Europe only twenty
>>>>>>> have signed the Additional Protocol (§45).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rather than demonstrating acceptance of the ‘hate speech’
>>>>>>> derogation, the lack of ratification of the Additional
>>>>>>> Protocol suggests severe reservations about the concept.
>>>>>>> Certainly the proposed definition is suspect. This is true
>>>>>>> even in Europe, the area of the world where the hate speech
>>>>>>> derogation appears to have its greatest popularity, and
>>>>>>> within the Council of Europe itself.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Despite this, while recognizing there should be a
>>>>>>> “balancing” test, the authors recommend that ICANN “should
>>>>>>> ensure that ‘hate speech’ is not tolerated in the
>>>>>>> applied-for gTlds” (§60).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We need to vociferously oppose this recommendation.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ICANN should not be in the business of regulating speech.
>>>>>>> It certainly should not be in the business of deciding what
>>>>>>> is or is not hate speech, a concept with limited
>>>>>>> international acceptance and a variable definition, and
>>>>>>> then prohibiting it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We cannot and should not accept any proposal that puts
>>>>>>> ICANN in the position of being a censor. This particular
>>>>>>> recommendation within this Council Of Europe report does
>>>>>>> just that and needs to be rejected.
>>>>>> The debate on hate speech also has a strong feminist
>>>>>> critique, some of which supports your arguments, some of
>>>>>> which does not - we could talk more offlist about it. I agree
>>>>>> on the 'ICANN not being a censor' point, but this begs the
>>>>>> question of how should human rights, ALL rights, be balanced
>>>>>> in the decision-making - on this I would point back to the
>>>>>> need for a rigorous policy making process (getting the rights
>>>>>> arguments looked at there and getting GAC members involved
>>>>>> in that process, which is one of our longstanding SG
>>>>>> positions). maybe there are other ideas here as well ...
>>>>>>> 9. In the strongest terms possible I oppose any suggestion
>>>>>>> of giving ICANN “international or quasi-international
>>>>>>> status” (§136) and I hope others will join me, as an SG and
>>>>>>> individually, in this
>>>> opposition.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Joy “shudders’” at the authors suggestion that the
>>>>>>> international legal status of the Red Cross / Red Crescent
>>>>>>> societies should serve as a “source of inspiration” for
>>>>>>> ICANN’s future organizational legal position (§137). I
>>>>>>> shudder with her. Joy then suggests that the ILO might “be
>>>>>>> a better model”. It might be, but if ICANN received a
>>>>>>> status similar to that of the ILO I respectfully suggest
>>>>>>> that shudder rather than support would still be an
>>>>>>> appropriate response.
>>>>>> actually I am not suggesting ILO as a model, i was simply
>>>>>> surprised that the CoE paper did not even mention it - I know
>>>>>> some governments are looking at the ILO becuase it is
>>>>>> tri-partite (government, employers and worker representation)
>>>>>> - and therefore using it to try and persuade other
>>>>>> governments that other multi-stakeholder options do exist
>>>>>> internationally
>>>>>>> With international legal status come a set of privileges
>>>>>>> and legal immunities. The ILO is actually a pretty good
>>>>>>> place to see what these entail. As a specialized agency of
>>>>>>> the United Nations the ILO benefits from the 1947
>>>>>>> Convention on Privileges and Immunities which grants,
>>>>>>> amongst other benefits:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process for the organization and for
>>>>>>> its officials in its official acts, with even greater
>>>>>>> immunity for executive officials,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2. The inviolability of the organizations physical
>>>>>>> premises, assets and archives as well as special protection
>>>>>>> for its communications,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3. Restriction from financial controls,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 4. Exemption from taxation of the organization and its
>>>>>>> employees,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 5. Certain privileges similar to that given diplomats for
>>>>>>> those attending organizational meetings.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The Red Cross receives similar privileges. The agreement
>>>>>>> between the ICRC and the Swiss Federal Council mandates
>>>>>>> that the Red Cross receives, amongst other benefits:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. Immunity from legal process and prosecution. This
>>>>>>> immunity extends to both the organization and to officials
>>>>>>> and continues with respect to officials even after they
>>>>>>> leave office,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2.  Inviolability of its premises and archives,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3. Exemption from taxation,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 4. Special customs privileges,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 5. Special protection for its communications.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It is easy to see why ICANN staff would be excited about
>>>>>>> proposals to give it international status. It is less easy
>>>>>>> to understand why anyone who is not a member of the ICANN
>>>>>>> staff thinks that this is a
>>>> good idea.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In justifying its support for granting ICANN international
>>>>>>> legal status the authors write,  “ICANN should be free from
>>>>>>> risk of dominance by states, other stakeholders, or even
>>>>>>> its own staff” (§136). I agree with the principle but fail
>>>>>>> to see how granting ICANN international legal status does
>>>>>>> anything but further entrench the growing hegemony of ICANN
>>>>>>> staff, making their actions less
>>>> transparent and less accountable.
>>>>>> well, i don;t disagree there :)
>>>>>>> As currently constituted, the three sources of definite
>>>>>>> external accountability for ICANN are 1) the NTIA, 2) the
>>>>>>> attorney general of the State of California (AG) and the 3)
>>>>>>> courts, principally those located in California. As the
>>>>>>> NTIA withdraws from oversight the two remaining sources of
>>>>>>> external control over ICANN are the AG and the courts.
>>>>>>> Should this CoE proposal for international status be
>>>>>>> accepted, in lieu of other changes, there will be no
>>>>>>> external control over ICANN. We cannot support this
>>>>>>> proposition.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I believe ICANN is already properly structured as a
>>>>>>> private, not for profit corporation. The authors
>>>>>>> inadvertently recognize benefits that accrue to this
>>>>>>> structure. In stating that ICANN has “flexibly” met the
>>>>>>> “changing needs of the internet”(§1) the authors
>>>>>>> implicitly recognize a value associated more with private
>>>>>>> corporations than with those institutions accorded
>>>>>>> international status. In using the .XXX decision as an
>>>>>>> example where the values of free expression trumped
>>>>>>> community and corporate objections (§57), it should be
>>>>>>> noted that some observers, myself included, believe the
>>>>>>> Board’s decision in this matter was caused by fear of
>>>>>>> losing a lawsuit threatened by ICM Registry. Immunity from
>>>>>>> legal process eliminates this control
>>>> mechanism.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> To support corporate structure does not necessarily mean
>>>>>>> supporting ICANN’s continued corporate residence in
>>>>>>> California. I reject the notion, though, that leaving
>>>>>>> California necessarily would make things better from the
>>>>>>> perspective of civil society or of the individual user. It
>>>>>>> would depend upon the legal structure of the
>>>> receiving jurisdiction.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As long as ICANN is situated in California there is a
>>>>>>> corporate reorganization that would better help ICANN meet
>>>>>>> the goals enunciated by the CoE authors: the cration of
>>>>>>> membership within ICANN.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Changing ICANN’s corporate structure from that of a
>>>>>>> California public benefit corporation without members to
>>>>>>> that of a California public benefits corporation with
>>>>>>> members, per §5310 - §5313 of the California Corporations
>>>>>>> Code, would do a far better job of creating a truly
>>>>>>> responsive and democratic ICANN than granting ICANN
>>>>>>> international status would. A more comprehensive discussion
>>>>>>> of this concept can be found in my 27 June post on
>>>>>>> Accountability elsewhere on
>>>> this list.
>>>>>> thanks Ed - I'll take a look
>>>>>>> I would also suggest that creating a special international
>>>>>>> legal status for ICANN would somewhat entrench the
>>>>>>> organization, and not in a good way. None of us know what
>>>>>>> the communications landscape will
>>>> look like in a decade.
>>>>>>> There is certainly the possibility that block chain
>>>>>>> technology, or technologies not yet dreamt of, will obviate
>>>>>>> the need for a central naming and addressing authority. It
>>>>>>> is reasonable to think that an entity with international
>>>>>>> legal status would be more likely to try to cling to it’s
>>>>>>> ossified technology than would a private corporation
>>>>>>> responsive to its members.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks for considering my comments. Hopefully they will
>>>>>>> provide a further basis for discussion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Indeed !
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ed ​
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: joy <[log in to unmask]> To:
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask] Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014
>>>>>>> 20:31:04 +1200 Subject: Re: COE Doc open to comments
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Marilia - definitely - here are my preliminary thoughts
>>>>>>> after some discussion in APC
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think the paper is very interesting and basically saying
>>>>>>> that ICANN (including GAC) is not fulfilling human rights
>>>>>>> obligations and that private sector, intellectual property
>>>>>>> and and law enforcement interests have been weighed too
>>>>>>> heavily in the balance of decision-making to the detriment
>>>>>>> of human rights and other stakeholders, including
>>>>>>> vulnerable groups. These are all valid (if not entirely
>>>>>>> new) points - some reflections for working up to a possible
>>>>>>> submission: + I think this paper is evidence that discourse
>>>>>>> is moving beyond
>>>> "whether"
>>>>>>> human rights apply to ICANN public policy making (the
>>>>>>> previous paper I contributed to) and more specifically into
>>>>>>> "how" in a very practical way - that is excellent and
>>>>>>> should be welcomed - the clear link to human rights in
>>>>>>> NETMundial and related documents seems to be tipping the
>>>>>>> human rights discussion - that is also really positive +
>>>>>>> the use of case studies to look at how HR apply in specific
>>>>>>> ICANN + policy areas is good, showing up deficiencies in
>>>>>>> both the standards and processes ICANN is using - The paper
>>>>>>> does mention social and cultural rights but only in passing
>>>>>>> in relation to the community application dotgay, so I think
>>>>>>> this makes our own work on ICANN and cultural rights timely
>>>>>>> and this CoE paper will be useful for it. + several parts
>>>>>>> of the analysis and of the recommendations were + already
>>>>>>> made by the Non Commercial Users Constituency in a
>>>>>>> submission developed in 2013 (one
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> that we worked on and which NCUC submitted to ICANN on
>>>>>>> human rights and new gTLDs) - but I do not see that paper
>>>>>>> cited - we should point out this connection in making
>>>>>>> comments + clearly governments are reaching for the human
>>>>>>> rights framework to challenge the behaviour of other
>>>>>>> governments (as in relation the law enforcement and the
>>>>>>> registrar accreditation agreement) - so while the paper is
>>>>>>> directed  at ICANN, it is also squarely directed between
>>>>>>> and among governments - it suggests there is a lot of
>>>>>>> discussion going on behind GAC's closed doors on this.... I
>>>>>>> really like the references to the UN resolutions internet
>>>>>>> rights - it is good to see this jurisprudence emerging. +
>>>>>>> there is inadequate focus on how the HR framework applies
>>>>>>> to + business - not just business interests in ICANN
>>>>>>> stakeholders, but also the contracted parties, such as
>>>>>>> registrars and ICANN's role as a regulator  - Anriette
>>>>>>> raised these points and I think we need to think through
>>>>>>> how to respond on this - especially on the human rights and
>>>>>>> business rules that were developed in the UN + the analysis
>>>>>>> and recommendations on community applications is very +
>>>>>>> useful and I strongly support this aspect + the paper
>>>>>>> recommends reconsideration of ICANN's legal basis to +
>>>>>>> include human rights in its bylaws - that is good - but
>>>>>>> they should also become a member of the GNI: Rafik Dammak
>>>>>>> and others have been calling for this for 2 yrs but ICANN
>>>>>>> board has actively opposed that step. so we can raise that
>>>>>>> + also recommends looking at the Red Cross as possible
>>>>>>> inspiration + for a model - that made me shudder give how
>>>>>>> the RC has behaved in policy making in
>>>> ICANN.
>>>>>>> A better model might be the ILO - but we must respond on
>>>>>>> that specific
>>>> point.
>>>>>>> + finally, perhaps one of the more thorny and challenging
>>>>>>> issues is + trying to define the public interest aspects of
>>>>>>> ICANN's role and also GAC's responsibilities - i think it's
>>>>>>> useful to raise this again and try to squarely address it
>>>>>>> and there are some options (the paper recommends an expert
>>>>>>> advisory group) - NCUC recommended a human rights impact
>>>>>>> assessment of policy proposals - i think we could also
>>>>>>> revive that idea.....
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 18/07/2014 1:01 a.m., Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi all,
>>>>>>> Gabrielle from Article 19, myself and a few others
>>>>>>> volunteered to work on a draft contribution with comments
>>>>>>> and suggestions about CoE document. Joy, your involvement
>>>>>>> is super important. Shall we start to get it going? Best,
>>>>>>> Marília
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:41 AM, joy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Bill - what a good idea to suggest a comment period- and
>>>>>>> great that they took it up. And a follow up event in LA
>>>>>>> would be excellent - I am sure APC would want to support
>>>>>>> it. I do hope it hasn't killed Thomas' chances completely!
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 8/07/2014 6:41 p.m., William Drake wrote: Hi Joy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I’m glad Lee did this, as it’s not COE’s normal procedure
>>>>>>> at all. We suggested they try it at our meeting with them
>>>>>>> in London.  We also agreed to propose a follow up event for
>>>>>>> LA.  It’d be good to have our own position on paper prior.
>>>>>>> Since the paper may have screwed Thomas’ campaign for GAC
>>>>>>> chair he should have more time in LA :-( Cheers
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:21 AM, joy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Avri - thanks for sending the link through - sorry it
>>>>>>> has taken me a while to get back on this, I've been away
>>>>>>> from the office a while and it's taken a while to catch up
>>>>>>> .... Thanks also Milton for your blog post about the paper
>>>>>>> - I agree with most of your comments. There are quite a few
>>>>>>> recommendations in the paper - was there any discussion at
>>>>>>> the ICANN 50 meeting about an NCSG response? I note that
>>>>>>> some of the points and recommendations in the paper were
>>>>>>> previously covered in a submission by NCUC on new gTLDs in
>>>>>>> 2013 and it would be worth connecting to that work in any
>>>>>>> follow up (which I am happy to volunteer to help with).
>>>>>>> Cheers Joy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 7/07/2014 3:51 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Council of Europe triggers debate on ICANN & Human Rights
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/icann-and-human-rights.asp
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> Is on line and open to comments.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *********************************************** William J.
>>>>>>> Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change &
>>>>>>> Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich,
>>>>>>> Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN,
>>>>>>> www.ncuc.org [log in to unmask] (direct),
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask] (lists), www.williamdrake.org
>>>>>>> ***********************************************
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
>> 
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUECBeAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpXNcH/RmrMuQsheRB/sVHgCzNseKp
>> Jarc5tEpwHpB6DmX/JGkpcJX02i0etWuGLYzrWdA8d2bfQCorUdIVN9UFjZWEeGl
>> qZ76JH6Q8iwYVBS+e2Bdj+8o0SJGgOer+111OwLVgET+GzvuS+n+w941DYB/2IBV
>> zm4rNvCXzjNAGJS7p/+OFA/1ilMxMAyKez/LS8Nh6ITR6ynm8JT4//39c8TADFkL
>> gVMxlH6DVN9RT4sGD7P09RvFBPoZjMajwylOEknKgUjSHQtzeMXFv8YT8u7A+1DU
>> CIY6x58YOUv2fHZ1yre4EOSb60WQeiy/6sa3AiEeP0DODqje55GUMaAGXYJ9VVE=
>> =rD0H
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>