As a short follow up to Jean-Jacques Subrenat’s comments I would like to make reference to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) < http://www.ohchr.org> and its series of human rights practical guides for civil society. The latest publication in that series focuses on Civil Society Actors (CSAs) that are human rights defenders (HRDs).

The Guides and work of the OHCHR present good working definitions of civil society, civil society space, civil society actors etc. as a basis for HR (and PI) dialogue, including framing the context for a free and independent civil society, relevant international human rights standards for freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly, and the right to participate in public affairs.

Starting from this foundation it is easier to "drill down" into ICANN policy and practice and ask the right questions, as a practical prelude to helping ICANN to "do the right things" with respect to HR and PI.

Starting from this perspective also identifies operational areas where Civil Society Organizations face serious HR/PI Internet ecosystem challenges beyond ICANN’s remit. Increasingly, beyond the scope of ICANN’s remit, there are challenges in areas where capacity building and engagement are needed to protect human rights and the public interest on the Internet. An example of this is where, contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), countries ban or prohibit organizations from accepting foreign material support unless they are registered with the government, and frequently subject to de-registration without recourse.

Is the free use of gmail or FaceBook, hosted on a remote server, the acceptance of foreign material support, leaving a CSA or HRD at the mercy of government action?

Sam L, Chair, NPOC Policy Committee

On 29/01/2015 1:26 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:

I appreciate Sam's analysis and support his suggestion of asking 3 questions. For the benefit of those who know everything about the Internet and ICANN, but slightly less about UDHR and related issues, I would suggest adding some words to help focus on the challenges at hand (IN BOLD BELOW): First, using the UDHR as a preference point, where are the ICANN policy areas that impact on building, sustaining and protecting a just society? (WHAT ICANN POLICIES (AND NOT ONLY STATEMENTS) ADDRESS THE INTERESTS OF THE GENERAL INTERNET USER, AS DISTINCT FROM, SAY, THE INTERESTS OF THE DOMAIN NAME INDUSTRY?). Second, on both the HR and PI fronts, what is ICANN’s track record (key performance indicators?) with regard to building, sustaining and protecting a just society? (SOME EXAMPLES: ARE THE RIGHTS OF INTERNET USERS (PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA, PRIVACY, "RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN") ADEQUATELY PROTECTED BY THE DEFAULT SETTINGS USUALLY CHOSEN BY PROVIDERS OF SOFTWARE, APPLICATIONS AND HARDWARE? Third, what are the lessons learned here with regard to corrective and future ICANN policy? AMONG THE MAIN REFERENCE TEXTS (UDHR, BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT ON INTERNET RIGHTS), WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS WHICH COULD BE ADAPTED TO ICANN? Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Sam Lanfranco" <[log in to unmask]> À: [log in to unmask] Envoyé: Jeudi 29 Janvier 2015 18:54:17 Objet: Re: [Poll] reminder: Topics for discussion: NCSG - ICANN Board meeting Tuesday 9th February Approaching Public Interest and Human Rights within ICANN From my experience elsewhere with regard to how NCSG might approach the issues of Public Interest (PI) and Human Rights (HR) with regard to ICANN, there are two levels of discourse. One is a global level discourse, involving Not-for-Profit and Civil Society sectors, and revolves around the core meanings of PI and HR. Those discussions have better structure with reference to HR since we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as a reference point and navigational beacon. One way of looking at UDHR is that it helps answer the question "What constitutes a just society?". For PI the discourse is more ragged and contentious since self-interests come into play. There is no single PI reference point, but the same question "What constitutes a just society?" can be a navigational beacon. Our NCSG discourse about PI and HR in the context of ICANN and ICANN policy is a second level discourse that is nested within the global discourse. Rather than trying from the ground up to build a HR and PI strategy for ICANN, the ICANN discussion should start by asking itself three questions. First, using the UDHR as a preference point, where are the ICANN policy areas that impact on building, sustaining and protecting a just society? Second, on both the HR and PI fronts, what is ICANN’s track record (key performance indicators?) with regard to building, sustaining and protecting a just society? Third, what are the lessons learned here with regard to corrective and future ICANN policy? For those who would argue that this just shifts the the discussion away from what we mean by PI and HR, to what is "a just society", it is important to remember that while that is a subject of an ongoing discourse at the global level, there is enough guidance from that global discussion to give substance to addressing these three questions at the practical level as one element of assessing ICANN performance and policy. Sam Lanfranco, NPOC Policy Chair

-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: [log in to unmask] Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852