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