RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

although I rarely post on this list, since my participation is as an 
individual, I want to note that ICANN has a narrow, even if critical role in 
the Internet. 
I am not comfortable with ICANN, or its GNSO policy process declaring 
competency on human rights analysis of policy.   
BUT, I feel  comfortable with a broad term 'rights', and I do think that 
tracking the AoC and bylaws languagewill be more broadly accepted, within  the 
GNSO's Council policy management role. 
We could suggest that the implications for internationally accepted norms be an 
area where submissions could be made,during a PDP process. BUT, then who is the 
authority on this?  Clearly the GNSO Council, which has a limited role is 
notauthoritiative in all areas.  That has to be clearly understood. 
Are we suggesting that the Council be able to retain experts to provide 
'informed views" for its PDPs? Sounds like a good idea.
In that case, the PDP process should include an assumption of retention of 
experts to provide perspectives, as well as submissions from stakeholder 
groups. We really need to be as neutral in our PDP process as possible. That 
doesn't prevent submissions during a PDP processthat asks such questions about 
'rights', ranging across a number of subject areas.... 
Marilyn 





> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document
> From: avri@xxxxxxx
> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:44:05 -0500
> To: gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>