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