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

[Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

My considered view is that ICANN expanded its role when included "rights of
all others" a while back (re: New gTLDs)? But unfortunately, those rights
seem to have been interpreted mostly as IP/trademark rights (establishment
of their protection systems) all while downplaying human rights,
registrants' rights, etc. I believe that it would be helpful if we here
elevated Human Rights?

Sincerely,

Alex

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  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 language
> will 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 not
> authoritiative 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 process
> that 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.
> >
> >
>