[NCUC-DISCUSS] Proposals for Rightscon

[James Gannon]

Most certainly not, we spent many months in the accountability group making sure that we now have strong commitments in the ICANN bylaws against this. And we will fight any attempt to circumvent that through other means.

-J

From: Ncuc-discuss <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org>> on behalf of Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com<mailto:benakin at gmail.com>>
Date: Monday 28 November 2016 at 12:32
To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>
Cc: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Proposals for Rightscon

While the conversation of ICANN in the process of implementing some of her policies and agreement could become a content regulator is also very interesting. There is high probability that some point almost become a content regulator.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161128/8496d5c8/attachment-0002.html>