Hi,

One of the issues I get stuck on when thinking about these issues is the
multiplicity of rights, all equal to each other and inseparable.   The
absolute notion of freedom of speech runs into barriers in such an
environment.  ICANN should be attentive to the full scope of rights and
needs to balance them in its policies.

I do am not saying I know where the right balance point is on this
issue, but I believe that other rights can be asserted in the assignment
of names that may press on the absolute nature of free speech.  And I
believe that these rights need to be properly balanced.  In do not know
the proper balance in this area though I am pretty sure the GAC is
pushing a bit too hard.  But I also think the solution may lie somewhere
between the extremes.

One of the issues we, ICANN &c., keep running into, is that people are
champions for a diverse set of one one right above the others.  That is
why I think there is a desperate need at ICANN for a group that is able
to do the deep thinking and advising that needs to be done on human
rights issues. That is one of the reasons I have been working with
others on Roy's  idea for a Human Rights Advisory Committee (HRAC),
similar to the SSAC (stability and security advisory committee).  I have
attached the current writeup for the idea.  I am hoping that we can
discuss this the Human rights session to be held on Wednesday of ICANN
week.  I have also atttached a copy of the flyer for that event.

avri

On 08-Oct-14 19:00, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Wolfgang:
> A MS process _creates_ "fighting parties" by telling anyone and everyone that they can have legally enforceable rights over common property (words, names) simply by asserting them in a policy process. 
> Sam provides a perfect example of this. A health advocacy group thinks it should be able to control how we use the word "health" or "mentalhealth" in the domain name space, specifically in order to preclude someone from using it in a way they don't like. The conflicts of interest created by such a policy are endless, literally endless. Everyone in the world would be encouraged to think that they have a property right or some other kind of special claim on words that are important or meaningful to them. Add different languages to this and the possibilities for conflict are mind-boggling. 
> --MM
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>> Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 4:07 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] AW: [NCSG-Discuss] AW: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC
>> proposal to ban top level domains that use a geographic word unless
>> permission granted from govt (next rounds of gtlds)
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> What is the way out? In my eyes the Dilemma offers an opportunity to start a
>> truly bottom up and open multistakeholder RFC-like process to find rough
>> Consensus on the basis of "running code" (as the guidebook, some GAC
>> advices and the experiences/contracts with the already existing GEO-TLDs,
>> from .cat to .Berlin and .london).  I do not see any alternative to such a
>> bottom up collaborative approach. Otherwise we end up in a GEO-TLD-War
>>
>> Milton:
>> The alternative is to do nothing. Which is better. If real laws apply, apply
>> them to what happens, using normal due process and limited jurisdictions.
>> No need for ICANN to legislate expression on a global level. And please do
>> not tell  me that speech restrictions are fine if they are done by a
>> multistakeholder organization. As I have frequently said, I don'give a damn if
>> the person censoring me is Vladimir Putin or a multistakeholder working
>> group led by Wolfgang, it's still censorship.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> Doing nothing will work as long as all parties involved more or less accept the
>> Situation, even if it is unsatisfactory for them. But there are options that one
>> party does not accept the Status quo and will start the above mentioned
>> GEO-TLD-War. This can lead to collatoral damages with difficult to calculate
>> consequences. To avoid this a proactive policy, which would include  bottom
>> up PDPs and early Engagement of all affected stakeholders seems to me an
>> approach which is based both on experience and wisdom. Cinflict prevention
>> is always better that the handling of a conflict if the conflicth has already
>> created "fighting parties". And I can not see that a multistakeholder
>> arrangement, which lead to rough consensus based on the Sao Paulo
>> Principles - which include human rights and freedom of expression - can be
>> labeled as "censorship".
>>
>> w
>