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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,,

The point I was making was not for the GNSO to declare competence on Human 
Rights.  The point is for the impact analysis to include a discussion on such 
impact..  Certainly the competence on this issue in the Staff might need to be 
reinforced.

I do think your suggestion about the Council retaining experts on rights issue 
would be a good thing.

Interms of removing the modifier 'human" from rights and just saying rights, 
might expand the notion wider than people are comfortable with.  I know many 
people who believe fundamental right include  development rights (where wealth 
is redistributed from the wealthy countries to the less developed) which would 
seriously conflict with some of the corporate competition rights we give a 
primacy too.  I am certainly comfortable with expanding the notion this way, 
but I wonder if I might not be in a minority on this.

a.


On 31 Jan 2011, at 08:57, Marilyn Cade 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.
> > 
> >