Sent from Blue Mail



On Oct 8, 2014, 11:56 PM, at 11:56 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>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
>>