[IRPCoalition] human rights in ICANN

[Marianne Franklin]

Hi Milton

I take your points. In response to your question on how to explain 
things (not a rhetorical one I assume!), is that governments have indeed 
been "behaving badly"  and we all keep learning more about these 
transgressions.

My point was in no way meant to be an apologist for these. But the 
alternative, if we continue to put it this starkly, is not a reassuring 
one either in light of concerns over data-retention, copyright, and 
unacceptable uses of our digital footprints to embark on so-called 
"experiments" by internet service providers 
<http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-users-emotions-news-feeds> 
without informed, or indeed any consent

This debate needs to be more nuanced e.g. just because an elected 
government, or its representatives working in ways that are neither 
transparent or legal, does wrong the immediate answer to this is not 
then to rely on the equally romantic notion that if left to their own 
devices people - and business entities - will behave better.

We managed to move this issue up a level, at least I think we did thanks 
to great panelists, duringPlenary 5 at the Berlin EuroDIG 
<http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/eurodig-2014-plenary-5-security-internet-governance-principles-and-human-rights/>. 
The full transcripts are online now or shortly 
<http://www.eurodig.org/eurodig-2014/programme-overview/plenary-5>

My point is that *all* power-holders have a duty and obligation to 
protect our rights online and in this respect governments are not the 
only ones under scrutiny, surely.

I agree with you though that this report form the GAC will lead to 
actions and not just words and here I also hope this will include the 
ICANN Board with and without those "ignorant members"..:))

best
MF


On 04/07/2014 16:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> I did hear in London in the Open Session one of the Board reiterate that
>> ICANN's work is a priori a separate matter from other venues in IG where
>> rights and fundamental freedoms have become part of the agenda. Is ICANN
>> above these issues?!
> No. Some of the more ignorant board members think they are. Hopefully this report will help to set them straight.
>
>> Your comment that the authors's romanticism about the roles and
>> responsibilities of governments in upholding human rights online implies
>> though that there is not a comparable degree of romanticism from those
>> who propose that disproportionate surveillance (and data retention)
>> practices can be solved by relying on self-regulation.
> Not really. Privacy advocates within ICANN have urged DPAs take action, and would LOVE to see a lawsuit asserting important legal privacy rights. We would also Love to see governments in the GAC actually stand up and do something for the human rights they claim to uphold.
>
> But there is no way around the basic fact asserted in the blog: _every single one_ of the human rights deviations in ICANN policy noted by the CoE report are there because the GAC put them there. How would you explain that?
>

-- 
Dr Marianne Franklin
Professor of Global Media and Politics
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Goldsmiths (University of London)
Department of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/private/irp/attachments/20140704/179dc5b6/attachment.html>