I already responded to Niels' similar intervention during the nomination process, but in the interests of kick-starting this, here it goes again. Apologies for list members who are wishing to disengage from all this, filters are your friend in that case, so may I add to Bill's helpful renaming by suggesting we simply add NCSG to the front of the subject line on all these topics?
Strategy regarding how to do human rights at ICANN is difficult in my view and demands a full and open discussion.
Stephanie Perrin
| Subject: | Re: +1's and support |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:29:25 -0400 |
| From: | Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]> |
| Reply-To: | Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]> |
| To: | [log in to unmask] |
I abstained from expressing a view on the matter of HR in the bylaws, for reasons which I discussed openly with all councillors and NCSG participants on the CCWG for some time. (Anyone can be forgiven for not noticing, as the traffic about the transition was overwhelming in its volume and pace.) I was concerned that the language was broad and would invite various parties to campaign for content regulation at ICANN, something I am strongly opposed to. However, it was a very difficult point to explain concisely so I feared expressing dissent on HR in the bylaws would be misconstrued as a lack of support for human rights. IN my view, trying to make the point in public at council would have sown confusion, and possibly been used against my colleagues who are working so hard on the human rights issues (notably you Niels!)
I think it is important to point out here that disagreement on issues is very healthy. Niels and I come from cultures where we can have frank and open disagreement without taking matters personally. This is not the case in all cultures, where open dissent is not considered respectful. Somehow, we have to harmonize on ways of doing business in NCSG, and I would like to stress that even if it is uncomfortable for some folks, having a robust discussion with our peers is necessary for this multi-stakeholder approach to work. I personally don't like surprises, I expect my colleagues to share information about their positions and activities.
Stephanie Perrin
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">Niels, You seem to be taking this personally. Why? We had several meetings in Morocco where went through each of the 11 recommendations and people voiced their concerns and we tried to reconcile a position. On some it was easy, others not so much. I don't recall if you attended or not. Best, Brett 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: Niels ten Oever [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 11:47 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: +1's and support On 08/03/2016 05:29 PM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:I disagree. The NCSG had various views on a number of issues in the transition proposal. I actually though that the councilors did a credible job of representing the diversity of views in the NCSG by dividing their votes.Hi Brett, I probably have missed the discussion on human rights (and how it relates to North Korea) on the NCSG-list, could you point me to it? Best, Niels