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

[Kathy Kleiman]

I have worked with the termination of domain names for intellectual 
property reasons for two decades at and outside of ICANN.  I'll be there 
and happy to serve on a panel. These are the issues of our day.

Best, Kathy


On 8/21/2017 8:44 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> 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/20170821/009a30cc/attachment.html>