Thanks for the reminder and the draft, my goodness there is a lot of 
work on our plates!
STephanie Perrin
On 2014-08-29, 10:02, Gabrielle Guillemin wrote:
> 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
>>>> ***********************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>