[cooperation-wg] 'European Commission calls for greater government control over Internet'

FWIW, Niall and myself have reached out to INFSO regarding participation due to our interest in knowing what connection, if any, INFSO see between the proposed E.164 CC and ENUM. First attempt was turned down, but a 2nd was fired off towards Brussels this week. If that get some traction, I, as chair of this wg, will use that to expand also to other areas.

I will also participate coming Monday in Amsterdam and bring it up there, and if INFSO people are on site (which they normally are) I promise to rise the question with them.

But, the point that I as chair can not help with is for all of you to contact your HLIG representative and talk about this. It is easy for me as "my" HLIG representative (from Sweden) is my co-chair for this wg, Maria Häll. :-)

For a discussion to happen, we MUST (as Gordon says) get more people at the meeting so that we can have a discussion. Being chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee of ICANN, I can if I read the papers with one pair of glasses (just like the articles) agree with some faults and needs for improvements of ICANN. On the other hand, some of the [interpretation] of the papers I do not agree with.

And finally, some details about "selection of domain names"... Of course the applicant should be able to choose whatever domain name they want. But, in various countries there are certain words, or set of words, that are prohibited from use, or specific use. In Sweden for example you are not allowed to claim in your name to be a bank without being one. What now happens if someone actually do want to have "bank" (as a TLD), and use that in a manner that is not related to banking activities? Well, if the business is done in Sweden, my interpretation is that that is a violation of already existing legislation so that the CEO or whoever can be dragged into court.

Given that such laws exists, where in the ICANN process should a review be done? Should one be done? Many countries I talk with is not in reality objecting to names per se, they try to in the ICANN approval process implement the legislation we already have. Another way could be for people to register whatever they want, but as soon as they use the domain name, they will be in court. Or?

And when looking at the human rights perspective.

One HR person told me that when calculating the balance between the impact of an individual not being able to choose whatever name he want, and the impact of a name existing (be registered) but being blocked so that it can not be used for communication, the blocking has MUCH higher impact on the ability to exercise the human rights. With this reasoning, domain names that will be blocked should not be registered.

I do not say I agree with the calculation, I just wanted to explain so that people understand that the ability to exercise freedom of speech is not absolute. Sometimes choices has to be made.

Blocking of domain names is of course not good, extremely bad (see above) and (I claim) do not solve the problem people want to have solved.

That might be a good conclusion of the meeting, referencing for example SAC050(*) that SSAC published as a response to a question from GAC.

This is not easy, and why we all non-government people must talk with our government contacts.

   Patrik

(*) http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/ssac-documents.htm

On 8 sep 2011, at 04:09, Gordon Lennox wrote:

> It may not be that useful to discuss this in Vienna if nobody who was
> involved in producing these papers (requesting them or drafting them)
> is present. So one thought is that some effort could be made to ensure
> that an appropriate person from the Commission, from INFSO, is
> present.
> 
> On the other hand why wait for Vienna? There is a  RIPE/government
> roundtable in Amsterdam early next week. Perhaps questions could be
> put there and people could report back to the list.
> 
> I would also suggest that people ask questions elsewhere and report
> back to the list. I would hope that everyone on this list knows which
> officials, which civil servants, from their country attend ICANN
> meetings and participate in the GAC. I would also hope that people
> know who is on the HLIG - the "high-level group" - from their country.
> And of course the personalities involved in the Commission, in DG
> INFSO, are well-known.
> 
> I am not trying to raise the profile of these papers. I am just
> suggesting that any hesitance on the side of officials regarding
> participation on this list or even in the WG meetings need not be the
> end of the story. You should have no inhibitions about asking them
> questions directly and sharing what you learn. Do not worry. They are
> professionals after all. And your taxes pay their salaries.
> 
> Gordon
> 
>