[NCUC-DISCUSS] Session on termination of domains for hate speech at ICANN 60
James Gannon
james at cyberinvasion.net
Mon Aug 21 10:12:08 CEST 2017
Sorry Martin but in no way does ICANN enforce registrars TOS on its customers with regards to right to not provide service for content matters.
-J
From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Martin Pablo Silva Valent
Sent: 21 August 2017 03:08
To: Gustavo Paiva <gdp.direito at gmail.com>
Cc: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Session on termination of domains for hate speech at ICANN 60
Hi all,
James, I think that your point of view is exactly why we need to discuss it, even if it is to say: we have nothing to say here. Because enforcing TOS is ICANN business when those TOS are always within the frame of the agreement those companies sing with ICANN. The ICANN agreement tells them what they can, can’t or must do. Even if we agree that the current ICANN legal framework of those agreement allows that behavior, it will always be open to the question ¿do we want that? Because ICANN agreements have the power to change future TOS to say the least.
Maybe the answer to all of this concerns are just like you say, ICANN has no business in this issue, go and fight it somewhere else, weather it is a US, UK or Argentina Court depending on each activist or right’s owner forum shopping strategy, but stay away of ICANN (I am really not stating a position on the subject in this email).
So short story: We need to have this discussion, even if it is to say is not our discussion in the end. And I think this belongs to both GNSO and the HHRR with their own different perspectives, scopes, members, etc. I wouldn’t even be surprised if other stakeholders, SO/AC or Working Groups talk about this issue formally or informally. The subject deserves more than a few emails, even if we reject it is is better to have it rejected after a fair disunion when the community has a fair, maybe wrong, desire to discuss it.
Cheers,
Martín
On Aug 20, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Gustavo Paiva <gdp.direito at gmail.com<mailto:gdp.direito at gmail.com>> wrote:
Greetings,
"I understand James's concern for scope, just like Bill I don't yet know what to think either, but it seems that Ayden's line that DNS, as a technical framework, "is being used to determine who can and cannot disseminate knowledge and opinions" is absolutely enough for us to put this discussion forward for the time being."
I find that Claudio Lucena's words represent my view on this matter, and in particular I think this is a subject that deserves debate. I am not experienced with ICANN meetings so I have no opinion on that matter, but I think a civilized, productive debate, with both sides being represented, could be performed at the Brazilian IGF.
Gustavo Paiva.
On 20 August 2017 at 16:37, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
I agree, let's not escalate things ourselves. I think the CEO of Cloudfare has expressed it quite well: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/cloudflare-ceo-says-removing-the-daily-stormer-is-slippery-slope.html.
I think we should have this discussion, am neutral as to the appropriate setting. I bet Michael Nelson from Cloudfare will be there, he would be good to talk to as a discussant of the matter.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2017-08-20 12:36, Niels ten Oever wrote:
That escalated quickly. I don't think the statement by EFF is
interpreted that way. Am a bit surprised that people would base their
decisions on how a fringe group portrays them.
For some more reading on the issue a selection of articles from Berkman:
https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/harmfulspeech
On 08/20/2017 06:29 PM, James Gannon wrote:
Be very careful here guys, the minute that this session is rebranded
as why the NCUC thinks that Nazis should have been left online, which
is exactly how this session will be branded by the alt-right, is the
minute you will see half of your membership resign, myself included.
-James
-----Original Message----- From: Ncuc-discuss
[mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Kathy
Kleiman Sent: 20 August 2017 17:06 To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Session on termination of domains for
hate speech at ICANN 60
That's great, Niels, but I think it is also a very important session
for NCUC to have as well (NCUC and/or NCSG). There are a range of
pending policy issues -- in ICANN and just outside of ICANN -- that
we need not only to discuss, but to start formulating plans and
strategies.
Termination of domain names -- via lack of due process, private
copyright law and private trademark law -- are all very much issues
that the Noncommercial Community needs to be ready for in statements,
comments and positions to come. The more we work on this issue the
better.
BTW, these are issues -- especially termination of domain names
without due process -- that go back to the very founding of the NCUC
and our earliest work on the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
(UDRP) which was "consensus policy #1" in ICANN. We fought for a
policy grounded in intellectual property laws **and legal protections
for free expression and due process.** With so many similar issues
now on the table, this is our NCUC moment to continue to serve as the
conscience of ICANN.
Best, Kathy
On 8/20/2017 3:36 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Hi all,
Perhaps we can probably make some time in the CCWP HR / human
rights session for this? Would that work for people?
Best,
Niels
On 08/19/2017 02:16 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
Hi,
In case it is helpful, please find attached the preliminary block
schedule for ICANN 60.
It is really a shame we cannot have this discussion as a
cross-community High Interest Topic at ICANN 60. I think that
would be the best place for this dialogue to take place.
Nonetheless, I count myself among those who would welcome this
conversation taking place on Constituency Day.
And Jeremy, thanks for sharing that excellent statement on
content removal and noting what a blunt instrument the suspension
of a domain name is. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human
right. You don't take human rights away from people just because
you hate them or their views. It's kind of shocking to me how
quickly some have been to throw these fundamental principles of
liberalism into the bonfire.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline><http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS]
Session on termination of domains for hate speech at ICANN 60
Local Time: 19 August 2017 3:49 AM UTC Time: 19 August 2017
02:49 From: dave at davecake.net<mailto:dave at davecake.net> To: Jeremy Malcolm
<jmalcolm at eff.org><mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
I would support this discussion taking place. I find the NCSG
agenda is usually a bit more open, and NCUC agenda often pretty
packed.
David
On 18 Aug 2017, at 7:48 am, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org><mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
Hello all,
EFF has just posted its thoughts on the GoDaddy and Google
termination of the Daily Stormer's domain:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/fighting-neo-nazis-future-fre
e-expression
This would be a timely topic to address in more detail at
ICANN 60. I will be attending and would like to be able to
find some time to talk about this and also about the recent
EFF and Public Knowledge whitepaper "Which Internet
registries offer the best protection for domain owners?
<https://www.eff.org/wp/which-internet-registries-offer-best-protection-domain-owners><https://www.eff.org/wp/which-internet-registries-offer-best-protection-domain-owners>".
What are the avenues for holding such a presentation? Is there
already a block of time for NCSG where this would fit in, or
should a separate session be requested? If so can anyone
point me to the information about how to do this? Sorry, I'm
a little behind on the logistics of ICANN meetings because I
seldom attend in person.
Thanks.
-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic
Frontier Foundation https://eff.org<https://eff.org/> jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161<tel:(415)%20436-9333>
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key:
https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP
fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF
1122 _______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
_______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss
mailing list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
_______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss mailing
list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
_______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss mailing
list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170821/2df1500c/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list