-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi - thanks Avri and Milton and others who have commented. On the principles: great to get more discussion on them - thanks! On the reference to guardianship, Like Avri, i feel strongly that there is a core principle there which is fundamental - and i also like the suggestion of a reference to stewardship: that's helpful - thanks Milton and I'd be comfortable with that. As for the last point - the purpose was just to emphasise that, if in doubt, we put particular emphasis on that higher aspirational standard. it wasn't intended to override human rights. I am happy if the prevailing principle should be human rights rather than stewardship. Thanks again. I will tidy up and post one for (hopefully) one last time. .... Joy On 10/08/2012 9:13 a.m., Milton L Mueller wrote: > Clearly there is no consensus on this. I don't disagree that ICANN > has some kind of responsibility for coordinating the top level of > the domain name space and that it should do so wisely; to me this > is a stewardship function. I reject the "guardianship" lingo (with > its slightly militaristic overtones), as well as Postel's personal > and idiosyncratic idea that he and he alone could decide in 1591 > that any use of domain name resources is only legitimized by > "service to others." > > If you choose to believe in that God, it's fine, just don't tell > me that it is the basic founding principle of NCUC or NCSG - it > isn't - or that it OVERRIDES considerations of human rights and > equity, which I think is just self-evidently absurd and wrong. > Remember, history is full of examples of powerful dictators, > monarchs, etc. claiming that they didn't need to pay attention to > law, rights, etc. because they were "guardians" of the popular > will, the True national interest, etc., etc. please let's not get > caught in that trap. > > I'd be willing to retain some concept of stewardship, but last in > line and certainly not as a principle that overrides human rights. > >> -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 5:37 AM To: >> [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCUC >> input on new gTLDs and human rights >> >> Hi, >> >> Since it is explicit that GAC members can comment on >> sensitivities, I think we can' t ignore them. And of course the >> Board should consider them as it must consider everything. and >> then if those sensitivities run against HR, they should be >> tossed. So as opposed to removing the language, I recommend >> strengthening the condition for tossing it after consideration. >> >> As for the Guardianship, I disagree. As I note in comments, this >> is a critical role of ICANN and of the I* bodies. It does not >> subordinate HR and Equity, it is a mark of our responsibility >> toward those things. Of course we have to guard that these >> organization live up to HR as a primary role and that is in a >> large extent what NCUC does. But if not for guardianship of the >> Internet, there is no purpose in ICANN existing and in us >> finding their work worth participating in. I am strongly in >> favor of leaving this and RFC1591 as a touchstone of our >> responsibilities in the letter. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Aug 2012, at 16:48, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> Thanks, Joy, The statement is massively improved. I added a >>> few more comments. >>> >>> I would still like to get rid of the idea that "Consideration >>> of >> applications for new TLDs should be mindful of sensitivities." >> Any such consideration constitutes a restraint on freedom of >> expression and while de facto the board and GAC will be mindful >> they don't need any help or encouragement from us. >>> >>> My only major concern pertains to the "Guardianship" principle >>> - where >> the heck did that come from, and why are we recycling ancient >> RFCs drafted by computer scientists pretending to be global >> legislators? And why, how, who and when did that principle get >> elevated to the Master Principle that subordinates all the >> others, including Human Rights and Equity???? >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of joy >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 10:28 PM To: >>>> [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] >>>> NCUC input on new gTLDs and human rights >>>> > Hi again - a revised draft is now available here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/17ijURQYy1uKh27NyDEWh_V1zhCDCI > vVtdzUEJLaNmyE/edit > > To comment and to view all comments please click on the "comment" >>> link. > Previous comments are marked as resolved where these have been > incorporated directly into or otherwise included in the draft. The > one issue that was not moving towards agreement was removed (this > was in relation to generic gTLDs). Any additional comments on > issues that may have been missed such as IDNs or any other general > human rights issues? Please make any comments by Friday 10th so > that this can be finalised by Saturday 11th. Finally, given that > NPOC members have also commented on this should it now be submitted > as a NCSG comment? Thanks again to those who have commented so > far. > > Joy > > > On 6/08/2012 4:11 p.m., joy wrote: >>>>>> Hi again - thanks for the on-going discussion on the >>>>>> google document. We have some areas of consensus and >>>>>> some of on-going debate, but no new issues in the last >>>>>> few days. On that basis I will prepare a more detailed >>>>>> draft suitable for submission and circulate this to the >>>>>> list aroudn Wednesday this week. Comments are due no >>>>>> later than Sunday 12 August. cheers >>>>>> >>>>>> Joy >>>>>> >>>>>> On 27/07/2012 1:54 a.m., Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>>>>> I see only one "anonymous" comment: "This is wrong, >>>>>>> and is a claim that has no basis in competition law or >>>>>>> economics." Is this it? >>>>>> >>>>>>> --c.a. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/26/2012 06:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>>>>> I made some comments. I have some serious problems >>>>>>>> with two of the things in the statement as it now >>>>>>>> stands: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss >>>>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf >>>>>>>>> Of joy Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:08 AM To: >>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask] Subject: >>>>>>>>> [NCSG-Discuss] NCUC input on new gTLDs and human >>>>>>>>> rights >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all - following on from the NCUC discussions on >>>>>>>> this list and at the recent meeting in Prague, NCUC >>>>>>>> agreed to develop a comment on new gTLDs and human >>>>>>>> rights. The open comment period closes on 12 August. >>>>>>>> To start discussion on the comment I've prepared a >>>>>>>> draft outline of some key points that can be >>>>>>>> developed with inputs from those interested. To do so >>>>>>>> I've created a google doc which anyone can view and >>>>>>>> comment on by clicking the comment link here: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/17ijURQYy1uKh27NyDEWh_V1zhCDCI > vVtdzUE >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > JLaNmyE/edit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You do not need a google account to view and comment >>>>>>>> on this. I will be monitoring the comments >>>>>>>> periodically and helping NCUC to update the comment >>>>>>>> by the deadline. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks to those who expressed interest in supporting >>>>>>>> this initiative. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQJIj+AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqd38H/12j+pKeUin1EWEozhTfrmWC ghN5Kc1mAxdI2TQ22CgckmlKl1vyJC9dJcngfyMVRwSPlCJxgVPYcRU/pGjpIu2m O/WTSPQ+r/sWgEqKfgNlqFTsRMO/vxHeve7pppTM+9eRCWUJnu4x65ELXI8bg6GN AUVtmb4wpM9oC5WXy8iEauL7HOtKM2Rser6W39meapFHa4B2jv8mf/TD53k7ptJX l1t+sYYqAOfOqviZ34cUqRVa6gkyjX+urXc/n6m8UGkjHFsA864w430eY5kki1ED qEXqV9cl2aHy9WL0zBM/95BxHhaGIBHKuFh4CYf+rm0I3ND2AFNjTWrSSH9YZW4= =9y9H -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----