[NCUC-DISCUSS] Session on termination of domains for hate speech at ICANN 60

[Mueller, Milton L]

I am in agreement with both David and James ;-)
There are potential effects of ICANN policy, but there is also a need to clarify where ICANN’s involvement does not exist or is being misinterpreted.

So I see no reason not to discuss this in ICANN 60.

As someone who has tracked and published about intermediary immunities and responsibilities I’d be happy to moderate such a discussion, but I assume EFF’s Jeremy will also be there and I know Tatiana, who worked with me on a panel on a similar issue at Rightscon, would also be qualified. Perhaps all three of us could lead a discussion. James will you be there?

--MM

From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of David Cake
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 2:40 AM
To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
Cc: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Session on termination of domains for hate speech at ICANN 60


On 19 Aug 2017, at 8:13 pm, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:

Being honest, I’m not sure of the relevance to ICANN here.
If we were at a Cloudflare conference I would agree as noted there is no process in that space.

But in ICANN space, there is policy which is being followed to the letter.

          That is exactly why this discussion is relevant to ICANN policy space and NCUC.



There is no denial of access to infrastructure occurring here. There are private companies refusing service, as is their right, and ICANN policy on domain transfers within the 60 day window being applied. I don’t see where the discussion in the ICANN sphere is needed. No registry has blanket denied access to their registry, no RIR has denied access to IP space, and ICANN has not issued any policy edicts on the topic.

          I do not think the domain transfer policy was intended as a mechanism to lock registrants out of being able to have any active registrar, which is how it is being applied in effect here. That an ICANN policy is having an unintended effect (or at least, not widely understood effect that is somewhat controversial) is always worth discussing.

          David

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170821/1bb5a1d8/attachment.html>