-----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-----