Thank you, Milton. I agree with Carlos Alfonso.
Geeze……
xx
DeeDee
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Dear Brett
>
> slowly but certainly your are moving away form the CCWG consensus. This is
> not anymore distance only to the NCSG, but to the overall CCWG rough
> consensus that we would include HR.
>
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> _____________________
>
> email: [log in to unmask]
> Skype: carlos.raulg
> +506 8837 7173 (cel)
> +506 4000 2000 (home)
> +506 2290 3678 (fax)
> _____________________
> Apartado 1571-1000
> San Jose, COSTA RICA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 4, 2015, at 12:57 PM, Schaefer, Brett <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> No. As I mentioned in my earlier note, I have no confidence that the
> mission would remain narrow if a broad, undefined human rights commitment
> were adopted. There are simply too many human rights that tangentially
> touch on ICANN's mission that would provide opportunities for mission
> creep. I would prefer no mention of human rights at all to a broad
> commitment to the entire universe of human rights.
>
>
>
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom
> Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
> The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tamir Israel [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 2:49 PM
> To: Schaefer, Brett; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: CCWG comments last call
>
> But this definitely excludes several important and relevant human rights
> that ICANN would need to consider in its mission (privacy, freedom of
> association, others). It also includes 'free flow of information' which is
> not actually a human right.
>
> Would it not make more sense to simply reference established human rights
> as a whole, but add a strong statement for staying on mission so that the
> downstream activities you mention are avoided?
>
> Best,
> Tamir
>
> On 9/4/2015 2:46 PM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
>
> That is why we would prefer the alternative option -- "to respect the
> fundamental human rights of the exercise of free expression and the free
> flow of information." If that is too narrow, additions could be suggested,
> but they should be clearly defined to avoid confusion and mission creep.
>
>
>
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
> Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tamir Israel [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 2:31 PM
> To: Schaefer, Brett; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: CCWG comments last call
>
> On the other hand, we would want ICANN to adhere to human rights in its
> own activities/mission. So it must respect privacy when setting its WHOIS
> policies. It must respect free expression when setting its UDRP framework.
> It definitely should adopt domain name registration policies that enhance
> accessibility to domain names. So how do we keep the good obligations while
> avoiding the second order ones?
>
> Best,
> Tamir
>
> On 9/4/2015 2:24 PM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
>
> We would be OK with a tightly enumerated set of human rights, but support
> of human rights generically would invite mission creep.
>
> “Internationally recognized human rights” or just human rights is a very
> broad realm and this formulation would, even if circumscribed by the caveat
> of within the mission for ICANN, be an open invitation for various ICANN
> constituencies and governments to demand that the organization involve
> itself in any number of human rights activates tangentially related to its
> mission, e.g. financing expanded broadband and connectivity consistent with
> the right to development, fulfilling the “right to the Internet” that is
> being kicked around, or censoring content on the Internet consistent with
> the right to be forgotten or prohibitions on defamation of religion.
>
> Regardless of whether these missions are well-intentioned, they should be
> outside of the ICANN remit. But I do not see any realistic possibility of
> strict adherence to narrow ICANN mission holding firm in the face of the
> political pressure of pursuing these other human rights if the bylaws
> commit ICANN to respect the entire universe of human rights.
>
>
>
>
> Brett Schaefer
> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory
> Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for
> National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation
> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> 202-608-6097
> heritage.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 1:45 PM
> To: Paul Rosenzweig; [log in to unmask]
> Cc: Schaefer, Brett
> Subject: RE: CCWG comments last call
>
> Is there any way to word it that would change your dissent, or is the
> objection generic?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Rosenzweig
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 1:39 PM
> To: Mueller, Milton L; [log in to unmask]
> Cc: 'Schaefer, Brett'
> Subject: RE: CCWG comments last call
>
> Milton/Colleagues
>
> I think that the draft is quite fine and for the main I agree with it.
> Without in any way seeking to relitigate the issue, however, I know
> that the human rights language is one from which Heritage would
> dissent. Is there some way of generically making clear that the
> NCSG comments do not reflect the agreement of all NCSG members?
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> [log in to unmask]
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 12:43 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: CCWG comments last call
>
> I have made some revisions. We seem to have rough consensus that we
> are opposed to the proposed voting allocations and consider them and
> two other things serious enough to raise doubts about whether the
> CCWG- Accountability proposal enhances ICANN's accountability. The
> comments now note that we are not unanimous on this but do have a
> preponderance of opinion that would constitute rough consensus. We
> all seem to be in agreement about our discussion of the so-called
> "freedom to contract" section and the section on advice from public
> authorities. We also now seem to have a way forward on how to handle
> the HR commitment, though that has only been floated a few minutes
> ago so it needs more review.
>
> In reviewing these comments, please refrain from the temptation to
> introduce minor wordsmithing - we really don't have time for it at
> this point.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JGBXO5oOiN_FxivPFkHjz3Gc2w3AT2
> PeJznrXPw2
> fJ4/edit
>
> Dr. Milton L Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org
|
