[ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN controlled by governments

[Dany Vandromme]

Hi jamie
Sorry for this late answer, but I keep my interest for this discussion,
even if I can't always answer in a live mode.
Dany
------------------------------


James Love wrote:
> 
> 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.
-
Not sure I could circumvent the problem shortly, but I would say first,
that there is a fundamental difference between US and (some) other
developped countries, in the way and the spirit, the Constitution was
written. To make is short, the US constitution is perceived to protect
the citizen from the government, whereas the French constitution is
aiming to protect the government from the citizen. Your 1st amendement
illustrates that, while in France, we tend to recognize that the
governement decisions or the Parliament laws, are made by elected
people, with a recognized legitimacy (being in a political majority or
minority is a different problem).

In the Yahoo case, we tend to recognize that the court decision is
adequate in France, for French citizens, because it complies with the
French law, elaborated democratically. 

I admit that both US and France are democratic countries. 
-  
> 
> 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.
-
As long as various governments, controlling ICANN (through the funding
and the board) are also democratic, I have no objection. 
You position seems to be: Since all governements controlling ICANN may
not be as democratic as us (means that decisions or positions of some of
them, may not have the sufficient legitimacy), then it is better to put
everyone under Uncle Sam's umbrella, to guarantee the freedom of speech.
I can't follow you there. Yahoo's French court decision is an example,
of a situation conform to your 1st amendment, but not-conform to the law
in another democratic country.
-
> 
> 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, 
-
In the Yahoo example, I would talk about absence of law...
-
> 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.
-
It would be a serious mistake to confuse freedom of speech with everything.
Example: freedom of political expression: I do not care about free
political expression, since I am living in France and any "extreme"
political expression is bounded by a "reasonable" legal framework: Not
possible to promote racial hate, revisionist views, etc etc. I agree
that in other countries, with less elaborated democracy, bounds may have
less legitimacy or rationale (being set-up be a non representative
governemnt body.

Freedom of entreprise and business: Why not, but provided it doesn't
violate other's intellectual property rights. This may become a bit more
touchy, since there are different IPR systems and rules, especially
between US and FR.
-
> 
> 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 certainly agree with you, but I see limits. Let me give you an
example: there is a domain name call eccole-primaire.com
Everyone (especially pupils or school teachers in French speaking
environment) would expect to find there something related to primary
schools or education etc..
Instead of that, it is only a for-sale domain name, with a content, not
really appropriate for primary schools. I would guess that the actual
content is there only to increase the cost for people who may be willing
only avoid inadequate content regarding the DN. In term of strict
business approach, I would think "fair enough". But I do not feel that
ecole-primaire is only a matter of business.
-
> 
> 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.
-
Agree with this, as the Internet may bring freedom to speech to those
living in countries where such freedom may be limited (or even not
existing). But again, this is completely out of the scope of your
example with the Yahoo case (at least from a French point of view).
-
> 
> 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.
-
Hope this will contribute to the discussion. Sure it will not close it.

Going back to the Lynn's proposal, I see lot of reactions against it, as
a consequence of my first point. Citizens or individuals must be
protected against government decision! Reality is much more complicated,
and saying that Lynn's proposal is fighting freedom of speech is just to
simple and naive. Earlier I had a similar approach, vhen looking at the
ALSC proposal, Where I found lot of goodies, even not in line with the
NCDNHC position. But this question seems almost over already.

Cheers 
Dany
-
> 
>  Jamie
> 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------