[ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN controlled by governments
James Love
love at cptech.org
Thu Feb 28 15:03:51 CET 2002
Sorry about all of the typos and grammer mistakes in this last missive. I
should not have done this in such rush. Here are a few corrections.
> I believe the "benefits" of US 1st amendment protections are more
apparently
> in repressive regimes like China or Egypt than they are in France. I am
thinking
>too of those countries, and people I know in those countries who believe
the Internet provides an
important
>opportunity to exercise freedom to speak and to read.
>
> I can appreciate how some others may find hate speech and other similiar
> things so repulsive that they are willing to live with a different system.
> But we are reluctant to say
we are ready to give up
> the freedom we have now, particularly given the range of national laws
that one is facing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <love at cptech.org>
To: <vandrome at renater.fr>
Cc: "ncc" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN controlled by governments
> Dear Dany,
>
> Thank you for your note. I can imagine that my suggestion that US
> government control over ICANN has at least one obvious benefit over
> multi-governemnt control over ICANN, and that concerns the issue of free
> speech, protected more agressively in the USA than just about anywhere
else,
> as it relates for example to political expression. And having used as an
> example of contrary traditions the very recent French ruling in the Yahoo
> case, I am please to hear from someone who rises to the defense of the
> French court.
>
> You asked for a "refined" notion of free speech, and I welcome speculation
> on how this might play out in a world where the ICANN board and funding is
> controlled by various governments around the world, as well as speculation
> on ICANN future role in enforcing lots of other laws as well.
>
> I do not think USA laws are in generally the best in the world, spend much
> time in the USA complaining about various US laws, and much time in global
> fora helping countries resist US trade policies on intellectual property
> rights and other areas, and we certainly are appalled by various US
regimes
> on IPR, that often themselves limit speech.
>
> We do, however, see the future of free speech on the Internet as a big big
> deal, and are not at all ready to embrace the notion that every country's
> notion of limits on that speech deserve to be enforced worldwide,
including
> for example the many examples of cross-border enforcement of various
> national speech and IPR regimes.
>
> I believe the "benefits" of US 1st amendment protections are more
apparently
> in repressive regimes like China or Egypt than they are in France. I am
> liking too of those countries, and people I know in those countries who
> believe the Internet provides an import opportunity to exercise freedom to
> speak and to read.
>
> I can appreciate how some others may find hate speech and other similiar
> things so repulsive that they are willing to live with a different system.
> But we are reluctant to say the least in giving up the freedom we have
now,
> particularly given the range of national laws that one is facing.
>
> Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dany Vandromme" <vandrome at renater.fr>
> To: "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org>
> Cc: "ncc" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN controlled by governments
>
>
> > James Love wrote:
> > >
> > > If ICANN is controlled by the US government, everyone benefits from
the
> US
> > > 1st amendment, which is a strong protection for free speech. If ICANN
> is
> > > controlled by governments in general, things will change. Here is a
> recent
> > > French court decision regarding Yahoo. jamie
> > -
> > Hi Jamie,
> > This is an interesting remark, but the notion of free speech may deserve
> > to be refined a bit further.
> > In the present context, I am wondering whether the case is related to
> > free speech only or to respecting a national law, voted by legitimaly
> > elected representatives* (and applicable for that country). I guess that
> > it should not hurt the French parliament to know that US is somehow
> > "protecting" the possibility of advertising or selling anything
> > (including items mentionned below), but for this to be performed in
> > France, it becomes non-compliant with the French law, as it was voted by
> > the parliament.
> >
> > 1) May be the issue is to admit that the 1st amendment of the US
> > constitution is a kind of worldwide law. I doubt that this respects the
> > right of other countries to edict their own laws for themselves.
> >
> > 2) In your first line, you use the word "benefit". I am not sure that
> > benefit is an adequate wording.
> >
> > 3) Having ICANN controlled by US law is a matter of legal context for
> > this Company, and would not permit its actions to transgress other
> > country laws, It may, at the contrary, sum up with conflicts, which
> > could be avoided with a worldwide cooperation. Imposing your 1st
> > amendment worldwide will not solve this, it will eventually generate
> > conflicts, which could be avoided with cooperation between countries.
> > That is one of the scope of ICANN: go away from a single country
control.
> >
> > Comment?
> > Dany
> >
> > * In the present context, I would add: with a trusted election
> process.....
> >
> > >
> > > ---------------
> > > By Reuters
> > > February 26, 2002, 1:30 PM PT
> > >
> > > PARIS--A French criminal court said Tuesday it would try Internet
giant
> > > Yahoo and its former chief executive for allegedly condoning war
crimes
> by
> > > allowing the sale of Nazi memorabilia on Yahoo sites.
> > > Former Yahoo CEO Timothy Koogle faces a maximum sentence of five years
> and a
> > > $39,800 fine if found guilty--a verdict that could have broad
> implications
> > > for international free-speech rights in the Internet age.
> > >
> > > France ordered the California-based company in November 2000 to stop
> people
> > > in France from accessing the sites, but a U.S. federal judge ruled
last
> > > November that Yahoo was not bound to comply with French laws governing
> > > Internet content on U.S.-based sites.
> > >
> > > The court ruled Tuesday that French law still applied to
> English-language
> > > sites and said it would hear allegations Yahoo was inciting racial
> hatred by
> > > allowing French surfers to buy Nazi books, daggers, concentration-camp
> > > uniforms and SS badges on its Yahoo.com service.
> > >
> > > Three French Jewish and anti-Semitism groups pressed for the criminal
> > > charges in October. The court ruled Tuesday that interested parties
> would
> > > meet May 7 to set a trial date.
> > >
> > > It is illegal under French law to exhibit or sell objects with racist
> > > overtones, and Yahoo's French portal carries no Nazi auctions. But
> French
> > > surfers, like all others, can switch to Yahoo.com services with a
click
> of
> > > the mouse.
> > >
> > > --------------------
> > > James Love, mailto:love at cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org
> > > voice +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040, fax +1.202.234.5176
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Discuss mailing list
> > > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> > --
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Dany VANDROMME | Directeur du GIP RENATER
> >
> > Reseau National de Telecommunications
> > pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche
> >
> > | ENSAM
> > Tel : +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30 | 151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
> > Fax : +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31 | 75013 Paris
> > E-mail: Dany.Vandromme at renater.fr | FRANCE
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list