<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document
- To: "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:44:05 -0500
On 31 Jan 2011, at 03:04, Marika Konings wrote:
> Recommendation 10 Impact Analyses: WT Agreed Approach: Instead of adding
> ‘human rights’ it was suggested to add the term ‘rights’ to cover a broader
> set of rights. Alternatively, it was proposed that the language should track
> the language in the AoC and/or ICANN By-Laws. (James / Avri towork on
> proposed alternative language).
I must say I am having a lot of trouble understanding why we are not willing to
say there should a a human rights (esp privacy and freedom of expression)
analysis of any new Policy. In this age where human rights are constantly
being ignored and abused, it seems the least we can do is look at any issue we
are about to make policy recommendation on and be sure we know what, if any,
these considerations are.
The simplest solution is just to add human right impact to the list.
a.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|