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

[Niels ten Oever]

Not sure how interesting the discussion will be if everyone agrees
though. If we'll all say: ICANN has nothing to do with this, not sure
whether it is a discussion.

Maybe we can frame it like: who can decide that content can be removed
and how should it be done?

Might be more interesting and productive?

To make it more productive, it might be interesting to link this to the
consumer safeguards discussions and offer a platform to discuss that and
then make a clear and effective demarcation what is within whose remit.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers,

Niels

On 08/21/2017 03:39 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                     678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9