I appreciate the back and forth here with
regard to ICANN
and human rights but I hope we do not lose sight of the core
issue. There is
near total agreement that ICANN and its remit are not in the
business of
addressing content issues on the Internet. Those have to be
addressed elsewhere
depending on their nature, and the contexts in which they exist
There is however a void here, and it is the
need for a more
explicit position by ICANN on what does and what doesn’t fall
within its remit
with regard to human rights. We can make an unending list of what
ICANN should
not do. That is the easy part. The hard part is to look at what is
within ICANN's
remit and figure out if there are areas where ICANN should
consider the human
rights concerns associated with what it does.
It may be the case that nothing ICANN does
impacts on human
rights. I doubt that. But determining if and where ICANN impacts
on human
rights through its policies and practices should be the outcome of
analysis.
That task is different from making a list of areas where ICANN
should not be
concerned. ICANN should have an answer to the question: "What is
ICANN’s role
in Human Rights on the Internet?".
It is not enough for ICANN to simply list
where it shouldn’t be involved. The focus should be on where it is
involved via
its policies and practices. How well it handles human rights
issues in those
areas where it has an impact will, in the end, be judged by the
wider Internet stakeholder
community, and not by ICANN itself. This will be easier for ICANN
if it has declared what it sees as its role in Human Rights,
within the context of its remit, and as determined by its policies
and its practices.
Sam
NPOC Policy Committee