Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers
Interesting article summarising where we are: https://domainincite.com/29888-jury-still-out-on-icanns-content-policing-pow...
Thx Oliver for sharing Did the ALAC accepted the proposed changes of the bylaws? If so, was there a debate on it in the At-Large community? This is a very serious change of the ICANN bylaws and the ALAC can’t accept such change before a large consultation of the RALOs’ community. I hope the article is wrong saying that only ALAC accepted the change among all the other constituents of the Empowered community. Tijani De : CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> au nom de Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Répondre à : Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Date : vendredi 17 mai 2024 à 11:39 À : "cpwg@icann.org" <cpwg@icann.org> Objet : [CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers Interesting article summarising where we are: https://domainincite.com/29888-jury-still-out-on-icanns-content-policing-pow... _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Well, the issue of RVCs has been discussed quite extensively and all the ALAC has said is that we are supportive of the concept of RVCs and that, if they are in the contract, the must be enforced. We have ALSO gone one to say that this doesn’t necessarily become content regulation as that would be a community or ICANN imposition of content restrictions onto registries whereas these are voluntary commitments, often made to overcome objections from us or the GAC, that find their way into a bilateral agreement. If it’s in the contract, it needs to be enforced, that’s all. The article is a bit simplistic suggesting we are advocating either for a bylaw amendment or ICANN’s entry into content regulation. From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Tijani via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 17, 2024 at 4:03 AM To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers Thx Oliver for sharing Did the ALAC accepted the proposed changes of the bylaws? If so, was there a debate on it in the At-Large community? This is a very serious change of the ICANN bylaws and the ALAC can’t accept such change before a large consultation of the RALOs’ community. I hope the article is wrong saying that only ALAC accepted the change among all the other constituents of the Empowered community. Tijani De : CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> au nom de Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Répondre à : Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Date : vendredi 17 mai 2024 à 11:39 À : "cpwg@icann.org" <cpwg@icann.org> Objet : [CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers Interesting article summarising where we are: https://domainincite.com/29888-jury-still-out-on-icanns-content-policing-pow... _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
First, I wholeheartedly agree that all commitments and obligations in a contract must be enforceable, and enforced by the other party when necessary. Unenforceable obligations in a contract are essentially a sham (or very bad drafting and contract construction). Second, I don't believe that a Bylaws change is necessary. The current Bylaws state in Section 1.1(c) "ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide...." The word "regulate" was carefully chosen, and then further clarified in the parenthetical "(i.e., impose rules and restrictions on)." A provision agreed to by both parties is not *regulation* nor is it an *imposition, *which would be a *unilateral* action, not a bilateral agreement. To hammer this home further, Section 1.1(d)(iv) states that "ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements, including public interest commitments [aka RVCs], with any party in service of its Mission." Unfortunately, there is a common misconception that the "content" prohibition goes well beyond "regulation" and also prohibits other kinds of actions and activities related to content. At best, this is a misunderstanding or misremembering; at worst, it's deliberate misinformation by those who wish the content prohibition was broader in scope. Also unfortunately, ICANN is very conservative (or timid or ineffectual) when it comes to many aspects of contract enforcement, which better explains why ICANN wants a bylaws change. If we believe that RVCs are a good thing, and that registries should stand behind their commitments, then they must be enforceable. If not, the RVCs should just be dropped entirely and registries can do as they please and we are back to the Wild, Wild West. Greg On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 10:44 AM mail--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
On 17 May 2024, at 15:59, Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
if they are in the contract, they must be enforced.
+1. CW
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- *Greg Shatan* *Chair, NARALO*
Definitely agree. If it's in the contract, it needs to be enforced. Not just should be enforced. I'm not a lawyer (so Greg can perhaps correct me on this), but it seems to me that, if we routinely fail to enforce one provision of the contract, it weakens our position in trying to enforce any of the other provisions. So, either enforce it or take it out. And if the other party, for whatever reason, needs a provision included, then by agreeing to it, we commit ourselves to enforcing it. If we are not willing/able to do so, then no contract. Bill Jouris Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 11:33 AM, Greg Shatan [NARALO] via CPWG<cpwg@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
While I’m not a lawyer, my livelihood revolves around advising on the intersection of law, regulation, and business operations. I make a living on the slim pickings left by the lawyers as I navigate the outcomes of regulatory intentions to offer practical advice. In the domain name business, RVCs with any significant impact tend to affect either content or operations. You might as well label them Regulatory Value Constraints! Legal experts, like the fellas at Jones Day or in-house counsels, are well aware that implementing and enforcing such constraints amounts to ex ante regulation. In the common law jurisdictions where I make a living, regulators must provide an impact assessment. When regulation fails to deliver positive results or imposes undue burdens, the practice of forbearance comes into play. This means regulators often overlook both the explicit rules and their underlying principles, with the regulations often being effectively ignored for practical business operations. Such as those a public benefit corporation mindful of the laws of the Great State of California and an agreement with the United States Government would profess. In essence, everyone comes up roses. And that's the playbook here if we wish to see it codified. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, 19 May 2024 at 07:38, Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Definitely agree.
If it's in the contract, it needs to be enforced. Not just should be enforced. I'm not a lawyer (so Greg can perhaps correct me on this), but it seems to me that, if we routinely fail to enforce one provision of the contract, it weakens our position in trying to enforce any of the other provisions.
So, either enforce it or take it out. And if the other party, for whatever reason, needs a provision included, then by agreeing to it, we commit ourselves to enforcing it. If we are not willing/able to do so, then no contract. Bill Jouris
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer <https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=NativePlacement&c=Global_Acquisition_Y...>
On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 11:33 AM, Greg Shatan [NARALO] via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
.. and even if the RVC suggests it, ICANN org would not blink! Because content regulation would leave ICANN org in the vexatious situation of extending or tolerating approval of regulation in general. My analysis of the AOC #5 continues to inform my position; that posture expressing reluctance to form an opinion of benefits vs. costs of new gTLDs is classic DC speak and tells the tale. The mantra here is to let the market decide. Which is why if I were an applicant with a particular problem for optics, I too would take my stupid advice and file a RVC. It is a 'get out of jail card' that is objectively legal tender. I hold ICANN org will never act or do anything that could demonstrably be considered regulatory. Afterall, this was a solemn promise to our Uncle Sam. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, 17 May 2024 at 08:59, Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Well, the issue of RVCs has been discussed quite extensively and all the ALAC has said is that we are supportive of the concept of RVCs and that, if they are in the contract, the must be enforced. We have ALSO gone one to say that this doesn’t necessarily become content regulation as that would be a community or ICANN imposition of content restrictions onto registries whereas these are voluntary commitments, often made to overcome objections from us or the GAC, that find their way into a bilateral agreement. If it’s in the contract, it needs to be enforced, that’s all.
The article is a bit simplistic suggesting we are advocating either for a bylaw amendment or ICANN’s entry into content regulation.
*From: *CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Tijani via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> *Date: *Friday, May 17, 2024 at 4:03 AM *To: *Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, cpwg@icann.org < cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers
Thx Oliver for sharing
Did the ALAC accepted the proposed changes of the bylaws?
If so, was there a debate on it in the At-Large community?
This is a very serious change of the ICANN bylaws and the ALAC can’t accept such change before a large consultation of the RALOs’ community.
I hope the article is wrong saying that only ALAC accepted the change among all the other constituents of the Empowered community.
Tijani
*De : *CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> au nom de Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Répondre à : *Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> *Date : *vendredi 17 mai 2024 à 11:39 *À : *"cpwg@icann.org" <cpwg@icann.org> *Objet : *[CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers
Interesting article summarising where we are:
https://domainincite.com/29888-jury-still-out-on-icanns-content-policing-pow...
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I read the article, if ASO and ccNSO both abstain, it takes two out of three votes for this to pass the amendment ??? Sent by a Verified [image: Sent by a Verified sender] <https://wallet.unumid.co/authenticate?referralCode=YQmHX1HBGdde> sender On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 10:48 PM Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
.. and even if the RVC suggests it, ICANN org would not blink! Because content regulation would leave ICANN org in the vexatious situation of extending or tolerating approval of regulation in general.
My analysis of the AOC #5 continues to inform my position; that posture expressing reluctance to form an opinion of benefits vs. costs of new gTLDs is classic DC speak and tells the tale.
The mantra here is to let the market decide. Which is why if I were an applicant with a particular problem for optics, I too would take my stupid advice and file a RVC. It is a 'get out of jail card' that is objectively legal tender.
I hold ICANN org will never act or do anything that could demonstrably be considered regulatory.
Afterall, this was a solemn promise to our Uncle Sam.
Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Fri, 17 May 2024 at 08:59, Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Well, the issue of RVCs has been discussed quite extensively and all the ALAC has said is that we are supportive of the concept of RVCs and that, if they are in the contract, the must be enforced. We have ALSO gone one to say that this doesn’t necessarily become content regulation as that would be a community or ICANN imposition of content restrictions onto registries whereas these are voluntary commitments, often made to overcome objections from us or the GAC, that find their way into a bilateral agreement. If it’s in the contract, it needs to be enforced, that’s all.
The article is a bit simplistic suggesting we are advocating either for a bylaw amendment or ICANN’s entry into content regulation.
*From: *CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Tijani via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> *Date: *Friday, May 17, 2024 at 4:03 AM *To: *Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, cpwg@icann.org < cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers
Thx Oliver for sharing
Did the ALAC accepted the proposed changes of the bylaws?
If so, was there a debate on it in the At-Large community?
This is a very serious change of the ICANN bylaws and the ALAC can’t accept such change before a large consultation of the RALOs’ community.
I hope the article is wrong saying that only ALAC accepted the change among all the other constituents of the Empowered community.
Tijani
*De : *CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> au nom de Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Répondre à : *Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> *Date : *vendredi 17 mai 2024 à 11:39 *À : *"cpwg@icann.org" <cpwg@icann.org> *Objet : *[CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers
Interesting article summarising where we are:
https://domainincite.com/29888-jury-still-out-on-icanns-content-policing-pow...
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Well, this is being pretty hotly debated, Carlton. The issue will be the assessment, more than the enforcement. It’s difficult for ICANN to be in a position to make the judgement so they will want to rely on some sort of a third party but I THINK we might see some enforcement, once such a judgement is made. We’ll see. Even combating DNS abuse requires some level of content “awareness,” if not regulation. From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, May 18, 2024 at 10:18 AM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Tijani <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers .. and even if the RVC suggests it, ICANN org would not blink! Because content regulation would leave ICANN org in the vexatious situation of extending or tolerating approval of regulation in general. My analysis of the AOC #5 continues to inform my position; that posture expressing reluctance to form an opinion of benefits vs. costs of new gTLDs is classic DC speak and tells the tale. The mantra here is to let the market decide. Which is why if I were an applicant with a particular problem for optics, I too would take my stupid advice and file a RVC. It is a 'get out of jail card' that is objectively legal tender. I hold ICANN org will never act or do anything that could demonstrably be considered regulatory. Afterall, this was a solemn promise to our Uncle Sam. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Fri, 17 May 2024 at 08:59, Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Well, the issue of RVCs has been discussed quite extensively and all the ALAC has said is that we are supportive of the concept of RVCs and that, if they are in the contract, the must be enforced. We have ALSO gone one to say that this doesn’t necessarily become content regulation as that would be a community or ICANN imposition of content restrictions onto registries whereas these are voluntary commitments, often made to overcome objections from us or the GAC, that find their way into a bilateral agreement. If it’s in the contract, it needs to be enforced, that’s all. The article is a bit simplistic suggesting we are advocating either for a bylaw amendment or ICANN’s entry into content regulation. From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Tijani via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Date: Friday, May 17, 2024 at 4:03 AM To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>>, cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers Thx Oliver for sharing Did the ALAC accepted the proposed changes of the bylaws? If so, was there a debate on it in the At-Large community? This is a very serious change of the ICANN bylaws and the ALAC can’t accept such change before a large consultation of the RALOs’ community. I hope the article is wrong saying that only ALAC accepted the change among all the other constituents of the Empowered community. Tijani De : CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> au nom de Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Répondre à : Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> Date : vendredi 17 mai 2024 à 11:39 À : "cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>" <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Objet : [CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers Interesting article summarising where we are: https://domainincite.com/29888-jury-still-out-on-icanns-content-policing-pow... _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 1:19 PM Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
content regulation would leave ICANN org in the vexatious situation of extending or tolerating approval of regulation in general.
Exactly. But it's worse than that. Crossing the border between enforcing technical norms and cultural ones takes one though heavily-mined territory. While most jurisdictions can agree on, say, abuse prohibitions, interpretations of objectionable content rules -- even self-imposed rules -- will vary greatly between them. And let us be reminded that behind all of the superficial and pretentious claims, ICANN's only public accountability that really matters is to the State of California. As a result, the US Constitution and notably its first amendment is most definitely in play and *will* be a factor in litigation should the Board make such ill-advised changes. I would be extremely surprised had it not been briefed along these lines already, and ICANN is famously risk-averse (as it should be). While ICANN is not technically a government body, its near-monopoly control over domain assignments and its historical ties to the DoC will make first-amendment absolution very difficult. But even should ICANN prevail in such a contest, the (very public) battle itself can inflict mortal wounds at a time when the DNS itself is under challenge from multiple directions. Best to leave RVCs as what they have always been: cosmetic and aspirational. Nobody was ever fooled by them ... well almost nobody. Leave each registry using RVCs to implement and self-enforce as they wish, without ICANN involvement. As Carlton said, let the market inflict any necessary punishment. This is most certainly a case in which the proposed ICANN remedy is more lethal than the disease. - Evan
On 18/05/2024 22:38, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG wrote:
Leave each registry using RVCs to implement and self-enforce as they wish, without ICANN involvement. As Carlton said, let the market inflict any necessary punishment.
Sorry but this translates to me as: "Let Governments regulate" - because that's exactly what a "wild west" situation would bring in the long run. Kindest regards, Olivier
On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 5:47 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2024 22:38, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG wrote:
Leave each registry using RVCs to implement and self-enforce as they wish, without ICANN involvement. As Carlton said, let the market inflict any necessary punishment.
Sorry but this translates to me as: "Let Governments regulate" - because that's exactly what a "wild west" situation would bring in the long run.
That presumes that RVCs are important enough for governments to care about. They won't. They will see this as a non-issue, just as I do. Compared to the likes of foreign election interference, crypto frauds, organized disinformation, deepfakes, under- and over-surveillance, AI and copyright, the sad state of journalism ... RVCs and indeed the DNS aren't on anyone's priority list except ours. Every now and then we need to remind ourselves that most of our issues just aren't as earth-shattering as we think they are, outside the ICANN bubble. My personal take is that we spend so much time on trivia like this that we risk not being on the ball when issues with real end-user impact appear. Cheers, Evan
On 18/05/2024 23:04, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 5:47 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2024 22:38, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG wrote:
Leave each registry using RVCs to implement and self-enforce as they wish, without ICANN involvement. As Carlton said, let the market inflict any necessary punishment.
Sorry but this translates to me as: "Let Governments regulate" - because that's exactly what a "wild west" situation would bring in the long run.
That presumes that RVCs are important enough for governments to care about.
They won't. They will see this as a non-issue, just as I do.
Compared to the likes of foreign election interference, crypto frauds, organized disinformation, deepfakes, under- and over-surveillance, AI and copyright, the sad state of journalism ... RVCs and indeed the DNS aren't on anyone's priority list except ours. Every now and then we need to remind ourselves that most of our issues just aren't as earth-shattering as we think they are, outside the ICANN bubble. My personal take is that we spend so much time on trivia like this that we risk not being on the ball when issues with real end-user impact appear.
Please provide a source that says that RVCs are not important enough for governments to care about. Ditto for the DNS. I should point you to the Digital Services Act that specifically mentions intermediaries including Domain Name Registrars. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe... The Digital Services Act is a real world end user issue. I'd be surprised there's nothing like it in preparation on your side of the pond. Kindest regards, Olivier
On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 6:38 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Please provide a source that says that RVCs are not important enough for governments to care about.
Now come on, your awareness of logic knows better than to demand evidence of a negative. Ditto for the DNS.
I should point you to the Digital Services Act that specifically mentions intermediaries including Domain Name Registrars.
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe...
Yes, it mentions registrars specifically. And yet ... RVCs are an artifact of registry agreements, not those for registrars. And apparently registries aren't worthy of mention on the DSA page. Thanks for helping to make my point. - Evan
For those who care about it, recall how the EFF weighed in about this issue *four years ago*: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/icann-can-stand-against-censorship-and... - Evan
This is as usual a bone of contention. I am reading some of the post on this subject, but I am opting to reply to the very first post on this thread. "ICANN Is Not the Internet Content Police" is the position as on 12 June 2015. Technically, Content Delivery Networks that can be under the purview of ICANN come into focus when certain "web content" has a high potential to go viral or [like in UK] citizens need to be aware of some crimes in the near neighbourhood. Policing is an intricate idea in itself. For example: Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal covering the study of policing. It was established in 1978. It became "Police Studies: International Review of Police Development" in 1977 after merging with the American Journal of police. The real concern is when in trouble who should one look up to without taking law and enforcement into one's hands ? There are content filters supported by many web browsers and one can use content filters on the server side too. The server side filters operate as commands. For example : filter r/33/-97/200 t/n It used to be a tedium to check the specific ports and configuration. Now there are many good tools. Server-side content filters block harmful content before it reaches the user’s device. They are installed on a key network device [firewall, load balancer, VPN gateway, email server], where they filter traffic based on a configurable set of rules. There are advantages and disadvantages. Does ICANN see any conflict in making the DNS happen with all good properties such as stability and resilience due to the provisions of Server Side Filters? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: 17 May 2024 16:09 To: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers Interesting article summarising where we are: https://domainincite.com/29888-jury-still-out-on-icanns-content-policing-pow...
+1 Greg to all what you have said. And just to note URS includes looking and referencing content. What’s in the contract needs to be enforced otherwise just drop it. Hadia On 19 May 2024, at 8:23 AM, gopal via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: This is as usual a bone of contention. I am reading some of the post on this subject, but I am opting to reply to the very first post on this thread. "ICANN Is Not the Internet Content Police" is the position as on 12 June 2015. Technically, Content Delivery Networks that can be under the purview of ICANN come into focus when certain "web content" has a high potential to go viral or [like in UK] citizens need to be aware of some crimes in the near neighbourhood. Policing is an intricate idea in itself. For example: Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal covering the study of policing. It was established in 1978. It became "Police Studies: International Review of Police Development" in 1977 after merging with the American Journal of police. The real concern is when in trouble who should one look up to without taking law and enforcement into one's hands ? There are content filters supported by many web browsers and one can use content filters on the server side too. The server side filters operate as commands. For example : filter r/33/-97/200 t/n It used to be a tedium to check the specific ports and configuration. Now there are many good tools. Server-side content filters block harmful content before it reaches the user’s device. They are installed on a key network device [firewall, load balancer, VPN gateway, email server], where they filter traffic based on a configurable set of rules. There are advantages and disadvantages. Does ICANN see any conflict in making the DNS happen with all good properties such as stability and resilience due to the provisions of Server Side Filters? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: 17 May 2024 16:09 To: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers Interesting article summarising where we are: https://domainincite.com/29888-jury-still-out-on-icanns-content-policing-pow... _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi, I think when we get down to it, the jury will be out whichever way ICANN goes with the RVC-Bylaws decision - at least until the the Accountability measures have been run; i.e. reconsideration to whatever extent there is reconsideration, and IRP. But it does sound to me like the AL voices are mostly supporting enforceability but not Bylaws changes, contrary to DI's claim. Do I understand correctly? Does anyone have an argument for why ICANN needs a bylaws change for enforceability? Especially pertinent would be an end user argument for the bylaws change. thanks avri On 2024-05-19 08:35, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via CPWG wrote:
+1 Greg to all what you have said. And just to note URS includes looking and referencing content. What's in the contract needs to be enforced otherwise just drop it. Hadia
On 19 May 2024, at 8:23 AM, gopal via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
This is as usual a bone of contention. I am reading some of the post on this subject, but I am opting to reply to the very first post on this thread.
"ICANN Is Not the Internet Content Police" is the position as on 12 June 2015. Technically, Content Delivery Networks that can be under the purview of ICANN come into focus when certain "web content" has a high potential to go viral or [like in UK] citizens need to be aware of some crimes in the near neighbourhood.
Policing is an intricate idea in itself.
For example:
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal covering the study of policing. It was established in 1978. It became "Police Studies: International Review of Police Development" in 1977 after merging with the American Journal of police.
The real concern is when in trouble who should one look up to without taking law and enforcement into one's hands ?
There are content filters supported by many web browsers and one can use content filters on the server side too. The server side filters operate as commands. For example : filter r/33/-97/200 t/n
It used to be a tedium to check the specific ports and configuration. Now there are many good tools.
Server-side content filters block harmful content before it reaches the user's device. They are installed on a key network device [firewall, load balancer, VPN gateway, email server], where they filter traffic based on a configurable set of rules.
There are advantages and disadvantages.
Does ICANN see any conflict in making the DNS happen with all good properties such as stability and resilience due to the provisions of Server Side Filters?
Thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: 17 May 2024 16:09 To: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN's content policing powers
Interesting article summarising where we are: https://domainincite.com/29888-jury-still-out-on-icanns-content-policing-pow... _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I would argue for a Bylaw change, not because we "need" it, but because it would significantly decrease possibility of disputes from those who believe enforcement of a voluntary registry commitment DOES constitute (incorrectly in my mind) ICANN content regulation. That being said, although I think that the number of NOs to a Fundanmental Bylaw change would not exceed that allowed (that is, one), I am not at all convinced we will get the required three YESes. Alan On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 10:04 AM avri--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi,
I think when we get down to it, the jury will be out whichever way ICANN goes with the RVC-Bylaws decision - at least until the the Accountability measures have been run; i.e. reconsideration to whatever extent there is reconsideration, and IRP.
But it does sound to me like the AL voices are mostly supporting enforceability but not Bylaws changes, contrary to DI's claim.
Do I understand correctly?
Does anyone have an argument for why ICANN needs a bylaws change for enforceability? Especially pertinent would be an end user argument for the bylaws change.
thanks
avri
On 2024-05-19 08:35, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via CPWG wrote:
+1 Greg to all what you have said. And just to note URS includes looking and referencing content. What’s in the contract needs to be enforced otherwise just drop it. Hadia
On 19 May 2024, at 8:23 AM, gopal via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
This is as usual a bone of contention. I am reading some of the post on this subject, but I am opting to reply to the very first post on this thread.
"ICANN Is Not the Internet Content Police" is the position as on 12 June 2015. Technically, Content Delivery Networks that can be under the purview of ICANN come into focus when certain "web content" has a high potential to go viral or [like in UK] citizens need to be aware of some crimes in the near neighbourhood.
Policing is an intricate idea in itself.
For example:
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal covering the study of policing. It was established in 1978. It became "Police Studies: International Review of Police Development" in 1977 after merging with the American Journal of police.
The real concern is when in trouble who should one look up to without taking law and enforcement into one's hands ?
There are content filters supported by many web browsers and one can use content filters on the server side too. The server side filters operate as commands. For example : filter r/33/-97/200 t/n
It used to be a tedium to check the specific ports and configuration. Now there are many good tools.
Server-side content filters block harmful content before it reaches the user’s device. They are installed on a key network device [firewall, load balancer, VPN gateway, email server], where they filter traffic based on a configurable set of rules.
There are advantages and disadvantages.
Does ICANN see any conflict in making the DNS happen with all good properties such as stability and resilience due to the provisions of Server Side Filters?
Thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: 17 May 2024 16:09 To: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers
Interesting article summarising where we are:
https://domainincite.com/29888-jury-still-out-on-icanns-content-policing-pow... _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
One more thought. For members of the EC who believe that this issue is out of their remit, I would hope that their position would be to support it (that is, not stand in its way), because being silent is effectively a vote AGAINST and thus they ARE taking a stand. Alan On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 12:22 PM Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> wrote:
I would argue for a Bylaw change, not because we "need" it, but because it would significantly decrease possibility of disputes from those who believe enforcement of a voluntary registry commitment DOES constitute (incorrectly in my mind) ICANN content regulation.
That being said, although I think that the number of NOs to a Fundanmental Bylaw change would not exceed that allowed (that is, one), I am not at all convinced we will get the required three YESes.
Alan
On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 10:04 AM avri--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi,
I think when we get down to it, the jury will be out whichever way ICANN goes with the RVC-Bylaws decision - at least until the the Accountability measures have been run; i.e. reconsideration to whatever extent there is reconsideration, and IRP.
But it does sound to me like the AL voices are mostly supporting enforceability but not Bylaws changes, contrary to DI's claim.
Do I understand correctly?
Does anyone have an argument for why ICANN needs a bylaws change for enforceability? Especially pertinent would be an end user argument for the bylaws change.
thanks
avri
On 2024-05-19 08:35, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via CPWG wrote:
+1 Greg to all what you have said. And just to note URS includes looking and referencing content. What’s in the contract needs to be enforced otherwise just drop it. Hadia
On 19 May 2024, at 8:23 AM, gopal via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
This is as usual a bone of contention. I am reading some of the post on this subject, but I am opting to reply to the very first post on this thread.
"ICANN Is Not the Internet Content Police" is the position as on 12 June 2015. Technically, Content Delivery Networks that can be under the purview of ICANN come into focus when certain "web content" has a high potential to go viral or [like in UK] citizens need to be aware of some crimes in the near neighbourhood.
Policing is an intricate idea in itself.
For example:
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal covering the study of policing. It was established in 1978. It became "Police Studies: International Review of Police Development" in 1977 after merging with the American Journal of police.
The real concern is when in trouble who should one look up to without taking law and enforcement into one's hands ?
There are content filters supported by many web browsers and one can use content filters on the server side too. The server side filters operate as commands. For example : filter r/33/-97/200 t/n
It used to be a tedium to check the specific ports and configuration. Now there are many good tools.
Server-side content filters block harmful content before it reaches the user’s device. They are installed on a key network device [firewall, load balancer, VPN gateway, email server], where they filter traffic based on a configurable set of rules.
There are advantages and disadvantages.
Does ICANN see any conflict in making the DNS happen with all good properties such as stability and resilience due to the provisions of Server Side Filters?
Thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: 17 May 2024 16:09 To: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers
Interesting article summarising where we are:
https://domainincite.com/29888-jury-still-out-on-icanns-content-policing-pow... _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
At the outset, I admit that my expertise on legal matters is not quite considerable. However, since technology eventually means people [since we do not blame technology], can there be an effective set of byelaws that manifest as something like "ICANN's Own Court" for the nice fellow colleagues of ours in ICANN since its inception? I would certainly bank on the technology basis of governance that ICANN beings into global practice even if technology is dubbed as new opium of the society. Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: 19 May 2024 21:52 To: avri@doria.org <avri@doria.org> Cc: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers I would argue for a Bylaw change, not because we "need" it, but because it would significantly decrease possibility of disputes from those who believe enforcement of a voluntary registry commitment DOES constitute (incorrectly in my mind) ICANN content regulation. That being said, although I think that the number of NOs to a Fundanmental Bylaw change would not exceed that allowed (that is, one), I am not at all convinced we will get the required three YESes. Alan On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 10:04 AM avri--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hi, I think when we get down to it, the jury will be out whichever way ICANN goes with the RVC-Bylaws decision - at least until the the Accountability measures have been run; i.e. reconsideration to whatever extent there is reconsideration, and IRP. But it does sound to me like the AL voices are mostly supporting enforceability but not Bylaws changes, contrary to DI's claim. Do I understand correctly? Does anyone have an argument for why ICANN needs a bylaws change for enforceability? Especially pertinent would be an end user argument for the bylaws change. thanks avri On 2024-05-19 08:35, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via CPWG wrote: +1 Greg to all what you have said. And just to note URS includes looking and referencing content. What’s in the contract needs to be enforced otherwise just drop it. Hadia On 19 May 2024, at 8:23 AM, gopal via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: This is as usual a bone of contention. I am reading some of the post on this subject, but I am opting to reply to the very first post on this thread. "ICANN Is Not the Internet Content Police" is the position as on 12 June 2015. Technically, Content Delivery Networks that can be under the purview of ICANN come into focus when certain "web content" has a high potential to go viral or [like in UK] citizens need to be aware of some crimes in the near neighbourhood. Policing is an intricate idea in itself. For example: Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal covering the study of policing. It was established in 1978. It became "Police Studies: International Review of Police Development" in 1977 after merging with the American Journal of police. The real concern is when in trouble who should one look up to without taking law and enforcement into one's hands ? There are content filters supported by many web browsers and one can use content filters on the server side too. The server side filters operate as commands. For example : filter r/33/-97/200 t/n It used to be a tedium to check the specific ports and configuration. Now there are many good tools. Server-side content filters block harmful content before it reaches the user’s device. They are installed on a key network device [firewall, load balancer, VPN gateway, email server], where they filter traffic based on a configurable set of rules. There are advantages and disadvantages. Does ICANN see any conflict in making the DNS happen with all good properties such as stability and resilience due to the provisions of Server Side Filters? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Sent: 17 May 2024 16:09 To: cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: [CPWG] Jury still out on ICANN’s content policing powers Interesting article summarising where we are: https://domainincite.com/29888-jury-still-out-on-icanns-content-policing-pow... _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (13)
-
Alan Greenberg -
avri＠doria.org -
Bill Jouris -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
gopal -
Greg Shatan [NARALO] -
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi -
Jonathan Zuck -
mail＠christopherwilkinson.eu -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Sivasubramanian M -
Tijani