For anyone who actually wants to give ICANN advice
The comment period on WHOIS data ends today (Monday). They do read their mail, so if you have a position, send it in. The two ALS with which I am affilated, CAUCE (US) and CAUCE Canada will be sending in a short position paper later today. http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-24nov06.htm Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
Hello all, I'm done "localizing" the LACRALO documents for the NARALO. They are very lightweight, in my opinion, and thus reflect the wish many of us have expressed to keep the NARALO lean. I'd appreciate it if people could look at the documents carefully and make any changes they see fit. Changes can be made directly on the pages. See http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU and http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP . Thanks, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com
Luc: Thanks ! I have quickly gone through your text and made some minor corrections. Let me raise some points that I think should be addressed somewhere in the text. - Jurisdiction: Usually agreements have a clause that make reference to the jurisdiction that applies. I would suggest it be cited . Now do we use Canadian law, or the county in California where ICANN's offices are - Translation: Should the NA Ralo texts be translated into english & french ? If so, we need to make sure both versions concur. that's it for now looking forward to everyone else's comments. regards Robert On 16-Jan-07, at 9:49 AM, Luc Faubert wrote:
Hello all,
I'm done "localizing" the LACRALO documents for the NARALO. They are very lightweight, in my opinion, and thus reflect the wish many of us have expressed to keep the NARALO lean.
I'd appreciate it if people could look at the documents carefully and make any changes they see fit. Changes can be made directly on the pages.
See http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU and http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP .
Thanks,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org
Dear Luc and Robert, I did not see your written input into the comment process for the WHOIS Task Force. Neither did I see your comments on the .com contract, or the .biz contract, or the .org contract, or the .info contract, or the .xxx contract, or comments regarding ICANN Accountability and Transparency, or the new gTLD process or regarding criteria for existing registry contracts. Frankly, I haven't seen you or your organizations offering any written advise on any topic whatsoever. In spite of all these non-contributions, you seem to be gung-ho to set up this organization. Why? regards, Danny Younger --- Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
Luc:
Thanks !
I have quickly gone through your text and made some minor corrections.
Let me raise some points that I think should be addressed somewhere in the text.
- Jurisdiction: Usually agreements have a clause that make reference to the jurisdiction that applies. I would suggest it be cited . Now do we use Canadian law, or the county in California where ICANN's offices are
- Translation: Should the NA Ralo texts be translated into english & french ? If so, we need to make sure both versions concur.
that's it for now
looking forward to everyone else's comments.
regards
Robert
On 16-Jan-07, at 9:49 AM, Luc Faubert wrote:
Hello all,
I'm done "localizing" the LACRALO documents for the NARALO. They are very lightweight, in my opinion, and thus reflect the wish many of us have expressed to keep the NARALO lean.
I'd appreciate it if people could look at the documents carefully and make any changes they see fit. Changes can be made directly on the pages.
See http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU and http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP .
Thanks,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-
lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
____________________________________________________________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
Danny Younger wrote:
Frankly, I haven't seen you or your organizations offering any written advise on any topic whatsoever.
In spite of all these non-contributions, you seem to be gung-ho to set up this organization. Why?
This isn't helpful. Lack of participation in the past should not serve as an obstacle to participation in the present or future, especially since part of this debate is about localization -- allowance for community consultation in local language -- that may provide better input in the long run. The whole point of the RALO level of structure/bureaucracy, as I understand it, is to allow at large groups to work locally and aggregate grassroots-level points of view before getting to the top level. If that's the case then there is indeed a rationale behind designing the forum properly _before_ a coherent statement can come out of it. In any case, this is a low-risk effort. The worst that can happen is that a RALO is created in the way Robert and Luc and others want, and nothing happens after that. THEN you can complain about non-action. But for now, arguing that a forum shouldn't be created because its proponents because haven't yet made policy conclusions seems a bit backwards to me. Personally, I believe that RALOs should make every effort to internally work in whatever languages are practical to work with (while still enabling proper debate), but that the interface to ICANN still needs to be in English only. Evan Leibovitch Executive Director CLUE - The Canadian Association for Open Source www.cluecan.ca
Evan, My comment wasn't intended to be helpful. I have watched this process over the course of many years during which time Civil Society arose as a severe critic of ICANN in Internet Governance matters. Their "contribution" to the process (what ICANN described as its single-largest distraction) resulted in a massive backlash that occasioned the loss of all At-Large directors, and the closure of ICANN's representative DNSO General Assembly. I have no use for Civil Society players that cannot or will not contribute to discussions and policy-formulation activities relating to the Domain Name System. If the intent of most parties on this list is to do nothing more than pursue Internet Governance issues, then their home should not be here, but rather in the WSIS talk-shop. You seem to wonder what's the harm in setting up this organization... let's be very clear on this point: the harm lies in legitimizing a process that serves to forever disenfranchise the At-Large community, a process that denies board-level representation to our community that had been promised at the outset representation on half of the ICANN Board. As for the value of localization -- show me one single DNS issue that would not be better served by the global approach taken every one of ICANN's constituencies. We don't have a Business Constituency or Non-Commercial Constituency that needs to be divided into five separate regional groups in order to be effective. This At-Large construct that you are pursuing has been an ill-conceived idea since day one and has met ongoing opposition at every turn from the real at-large community. It's now been four years since this plan was foisted upon us, and not one single ALS (there are 66 now) has offered a single comment on any DNS-related issue in all that time. The results speak for themselves. --- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
Frankly, I haven't seen you or your organizations offering any written advise on any topic whatsoever.
In spite of all these non-contributions, you seem to be gung-ho to set up this organization. Why?
This isn't helpful.
Lack of participation in the past should not serve as an obstacle to participation in the present or future, especially since part of this debate is about localization -- allowance for community consultation in local language -- that may provide better input in the long run.
The whole point of the RALO level of structure/bureaucracy, as I understand it, is to allow at large groups to work locally and aggregate grassroots-level points of view before getting to the top level. If that's the case then there is indeed a rationale behind designing the forum properly _before_ a coherent statement can come out of it.
In any case, this is a low-risk effort. The worst that can happen is that a RALO is created in the way Robert and Luc and others want, and nothing happens after that. THEN you can complain about non-action. But for now, arguing that a forum shouldn't be created because its proponents because haven't yet made policy conclusions seems a bit backwards to me.
Personally, I believe that RALOs should make every effort to internally work in whatever languages are practical to work with (while still enabling proper debate), but that the interface to ICANN still needs to be in English only.
Evan Leibovitch Executive Director CLUE - The Canadian Association for Open Source www.cluecan.ca
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
The whole point of the RALO level of structure/bureaucracy, as I understand it, is to allow at large groups to work locally and aggregate grassroots-level points of view before getting to the top level.
Not really. It's to choose two ALAC members. There is a reasonable point of view that the real goal of the aggregation stuff is to set up a chokepoint to keep the variety of voices from disturbing ICANN. My experience with ALAC tells me that we are unlikely to find much consensus on any non-trivial issue, and a single report from a RALO will undoubtedly be interpreted as such, regardless of what it says. ICANN has processes for any individual or group to comment now, and it would be foolish not to use them, RALO or no RALO.
In any case, this is a low-risk effort. The worst that can happen is that a RALO is created in the way Robert and Luc and others want, and nothing happens after that.
I'm perfectly OK with a low impact RALO, no in person meetings, no budget, no secret handshakes. Just don't take it for more than it is.
Personally, I believe that RALOs should make every effort to internally work in whatever languages are practical to work with (while still enabling proper debate), but that the interface to ICANN still needs to be in English only.
ICANN's working language is English. If you talk to them in any other language, they simply won't understand. In Sao Paulo they had simultaneous translation into Spanish (there were a lot of attendees from other parts of Latin America) but it was clear that very few people, at least at the physical meeting, were using it. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
Danny, You may have seen ISOC Québec's comments to the NTIA, that ISOC Québec participated in the Toronto outreach event and that we organized an ICANN outreach event for the French community in Québec. During WSIS and IGF events, we have also supported ICANN against the crowd that wanted to replace it with a UN-mandated org. Our contribution is certainly modest, but we try to allocate our volunteer time the way we think it can have the most impact. As for why I'm interested in working to help form the NARALO, the main reason is that as ICANN needs the RALOs to be able to show it allows for user input in the ICANN process, I think the RALOs can become one more channel that users can use to try to achieve some influence in the ICANN process. Regards, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 16 janvier 2007 11:41 To: Robert Guerra; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: Luc Faubert Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO documents
Dear Luc and Robert,
I did not see your written input into the comment process for the WHOIS Task Force. Neither did I see your comments on the .com contract, or the .biz contract, or the .org contract, or the .info contract, or the .xxx contract, or comments regarding ICANN Accountability and Transparency, or the new gTLD process or regarding criteria for existing registry contracts.
Frankly, I haven't seen you or your organizations offering any written advise on any topic whatsoever.
In spite of all these non-contributions, you seem to be gung-ho to set up this organization. Why?
regards, Danny Younger
--- Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
Luc:
Thanks !
I have quickly gone through your text and made some minor corrections.
Let me raise some points that I think should be addressed somewhere in the text.
- Jurisdiction: Usually agreements have a clause that make reference to the jurisdiction that applies. I would suggest it be cited . Now do we use Canadian law, or the county in California where ICANN's offices are
- Translation: Should the NA Ralo texts be translated into english & french ? If so, we need to make sure both versions concur.
that's it for now
looking forward to everyone else's comments.
regards
Robert
On 16-Jan-07, at 9:49 AM, Luc Faubert wrote:
Hello all,
I'm done "localizing" the LACRALO documents for the NARALO. They are very lightweight, in my opinion, and thus reflect the wish many of us have expressed to keep the NARALO lean.
I'd appreciate it if people could look at the documents carefully and make any changes they see fit. Changes can be made directly on the pages.
See http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU and http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP .
Thanks,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-
lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org
______________________________________________________________ ______________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org
Thanks Robert. If we must include the jurisdiction, then I guess California would be the most obvious, but I'm not a lawyer and don't know about the implications of any given choice. Regarding translation of the OP and MOU to French, I propose we do that when we have final text, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: 16 janvier 2007 10:55 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO documents
Luc:
Thanks !
I have quickly gone through your text and made some minor corrections.
Let me raise some points that I think should be addressed somewhere in the text.
- Jurisdiction: Usually agreements have a clause that make reference to the jurisdiction that applies. I would suggest it be cited . Now do we use Canadian law, or the county in California where ICANN's offices are
- Translation: Should the NA Ralo texts be translated into english & french ? If so, we need to make sure both versions concur.
that's it for now
looking forward to everyone else's comments.
regards
Robert
On 16-Jan-07, at 9:49 AM, Luc Faubert wrote:
Hello all,
I'm done "localizing" the LACRALO documents for the NARALO. They are very lightweight, in my opinion, and thus reflect the wish many of us have expressed to keep the NARALO lean.
I'd appreciate it if people could look at the documents carefully and make any changes they see fit. Changes can be made directly on the pages.
See http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU and http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP .
Thanks,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org
Nick can clarify but I don't think MoU or OP need to have a jurisdiction. cheers, J. Luc Faubert wrote:
Thanks Robert.
If we must include the jurisdiction, then I guess California would be the most obvious, but I'm not a lawyer and don't know about the implications of any given choice.
Regarding translation of the OP and MOU to French, I propose we do that when we have final text,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: 16 janvier 2007 10:55 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO documents
Luc:
Thanks !
I have quickly gone through your text and made some minor corrections.
Let me raise some points that I think should be addressed somewhere in the text.
- Jurisdiction: Usually agreements have a clause that make reference to the jurisdiction that applies. I would suggest it be cited . Now do we use Canadian law, or the county in California where ICANN's offices are
- Translation: Should the NA Ralo texts be translated into english & french ? If so, we need to make sure both versions concur.
that's it for now
looking forward to everyone else's comments.
regards
Robert
On 16-Jan-07, at 9:49 AM, Luc Faubert wrote:
Hello all,
I'm done "localizing" the LACRALO documents for the NARALO. They are very lightweight, in my opinion, and thus reflect the wish many of us have expressed to keep the NARALO lean.
I'd appreciate it if people could look at the documents carefully and make any changes they see fit. Changes can be made directly on the pages.
See http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU and http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP .
Thanks,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Some thoughts: Since a memorandum of understanding is not a contract, it does not need to provide for jurisdiction like a normal legal contract would do. None of the other MoUs have provisions related to jurisdiction. Another question that I have: It appears that most of the other RALOs are going to choose to elect their ALAC members upon signature of their MoUs. Certainly this is what the LAC region has done, electing both representatives as soon as the RALO was formed in Sao Paulo, with terms of 2 and 3 years to stagger future elections. It appears that Africa will choose to follow the same practice. It is unclear what Europe and Asia will do in this connection at present. I bring this up because the current draft Operating Principles would require that the regional representatives would be elected not upon signature of the MoU, but several months later at the ICANN International Meeting, scheduled for October 2007 in Asia. Of course you are entirely free to adopt this procedure. I just wanted to highlight that you are not obligated to do so. On 16/01/07, Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
Luc:
Thanks !
I have quickly gone through your text and made some minor corrections.
Let me raise some points that I think should be addressed somewhere in the text.
- Jurisdiction: Usually agreements have a clause that make reference to the jurisdiction that applies. I would suggest it be cited . Now do we use Canadian law, or the county in California where ICANN's offices are
- Translation: Should the NA Ralo texts be translated into english & french ? If so, we need to make sure both versions concur.
that's it for now
looking forward to everyone else's comments.
regards
Robert
On 16-Jan-07, at 9:49 AM, Luc Faubert wrote:
Hello all,
I'm done "localizing" the LACRALO documents for the NARALO. They are very lightweight, in my opinion, and thus reflect the wish many of us have expressed to keep the NARALO lean.
I'd appreciate it if people could look at the documents carefully and make any changes they see fit. Changes can be made directly on the pages.
See http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU and http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP .
Thanks,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart FESTIVE GREETINGS! As per usual, in lieu of cards for friends and colleagues, I have made a donation in your name to Medecins Sans Frontieres, to help them provide medical care to those much less fortunate than ourselves.
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Some thoughts:
Since a memorandum of understanding is not a contract, it does not need to provide for jurisdiction like a normal legal contract would do. None of the other MoUs have provisions related to jurisdiction.
On the other hand, if the MoU is not a contract, it doesn't provide the signing ALSs or RALO any remedies if ICANN breaches the terms of its agreement such as by failing to support the secretariat, failing to make documents available, or continued lack of transparency. Perhaps the ALSs want stronger remedies -- i.e., maybe we want to push for a real contract with a real possibility of money damages. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
On the other hand, if the MoU is not a contract, it doesn't provide the signing ALSs or RALO any remedies if ICANN breaches the terms of its agreement such as by failing to support the secretariat, failing to make documents available, or continued lack of transparency. Perhaps the ALSs want stronger remedies -- i.e., maybe we want to push for a real contract with a real possibility of money damages.
"We" (at least speaking for my personal participation in this "we") will NOT push for a "real contract" or monetary penalties, especially from a non-profit. In fact, "we" (from my POV) will actively oppose it. My ALS joined this process in order to assist ICANN, not aquire a collective opportunity to sue it. I for one am happy to go along with the process Nick described that LAC had done, in electing the reps upon completion of the MOU. As for contracts versus MOUs, if I am in the minority and people here really want the abilility to sue ICANN, then at least set the jurisdiction in Canada or somewhere else which has real social and/or legal disincentives to frivolous litigation. - Evan
Past experience with ICANN suggests that lawsuits are the only things that get it to listen. Karl Auerbach had to sue to get access to the financial records (although it was a legal requirement that Directors be given such access); Verisign's lawsuit got it a favorable renewal of the .com contract, though one unfavorable to the public interest. The public was not made "members" of the corporation under California law (even when the public was permitted to vote), specifically so individuals could not claim legal rights against ICANN. And so, ICANN feels free to ignore the opinions and interests of the general public and individual Internet users. Giving the RALO enforceable commitments from ICANN could take a small step toward remedying that imbalance. I'm not proposing that the RALO engage in frivolous lawsuits, only that it preserve the legal right to enforce compliance with the duties it requests of ICANN in its contract/MOU. (Perhaps I should have spoken of specific performance, rather than money damages, as the desired remedy for breaches.) If we're not entering an enforceable agreement, why bother entering an agreement at all? --Wendy Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
On the other hand, if the MoU is not a contract, it doesn't provide the signing ALSs or RALO any remedies if ICANN breaches the terms of its agreement such as by failing to support the secretariat, failing to make documents available, or continued lack of transparency. Perhaps the ALSs want stronger remedies -- i.e., maybe we want to push for a real contract with a real possibility of money damages.
"We" (at least speaking for my personal participation in this "we") will NOT push for a "real contract" or monetary penalties, especially from a non-profit. In fact, "we" (from my POV) will actively oppose it. My ALS joined this process in order to assist ICANN, not aquire a collective opportunity to sue it.
I for one am happy to go along with the process Nick described that LAC had done, in electing the reps upon completion of the MOU. As for contracts versus MOUs, if I am in the minority and people here really want the abilility to sue ICANN, then at least set the jurisdiction in Canada or somewhere else which has real social and/or legal disincentives to frivolous litigation.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Evan: Wendy and others have long been involved in ICANN and have concerns that should not be readily dismissed by newcomers. Might I suggest Wendy and others spend the time to explain the context and history a bit better... In the meantime, my comments on a possible MoU are as follows: The ALS in the NA region should develop a MoU that is far more precise and detailed vis-a-vis the document which the latin american region agreed to. Roles, responsibilities , expectations and mechanisms ensure transparency of both ICANN and ALS's, i believe must be precisely stated. After all, with finances (ie. budget allocations) involved - the document should be as tight as possible. regards Robert On 31-Jan-07, at 10:52 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
On the other hand, if the MoU is not a contract, it doesn't provide the signing ALSs or RALO any remedies if ICANN breaches the terms of its agreement such as by failing to support the secretariat, failing to make documents available, or continued lack of transparency. Perhaps the ALSs want stronger remedies -- i.e., maybe we want to push for a real contract with a real possibility of money damages.
"We" (at least speaking for my personal participation in this "we") will NOT push for a "real contract" or monetary penalties, especially from a non-profit. In fact, "we" (from my POV) will actively oppose it. My ALS joined this process in order to assist ICANN, not aquire a collective opportunity to sue it.
I for one am happy to go along with the process Nick described that LAC had done, in electing the reps upon completion of the MOU. As for contracts versus MOUs, if I am in the minority and people here really want the abilility to sue ICANN, then at least set the jurisdiction in Canada or somewhere else which has real social and/or legal disincentives to frivolous litigation.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003) Charset: US-ASCII wj8DBQFFwPbzy4WW7wlGmwMRAvRkAKCincjxfHFnhiHg6VTEbD/zGiTkhACg1kUP k4IrUIy8r00klLi1xe7/NRw= =nDE9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The MOU should say that selection occur "no later than" the annual meeting, which should allow us to move it up to an earlier time, whenever appropriate. In order to elect, we'll need a complete roster of approved At Large Structures and their designated representatives, which I assume we have someplace. Is that publicly posted (I assume?). What's the URL? Then we'll need appropriate notice and call for statements of interest. Bret On Jan 31, 2007, at 6:20 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
I bring this up because the current draft Operating Principles would require that the regional representatives would be elected not upon signature of the MoU, but several months later at the ICANN International Meeting, scheduled for October 2007 in Asia.
Of course you are entirely free to adopt this procedure. I just wanted to highlight that you are not obligated to do so.
I added text to OP's paragraph 10 to mention immediate seating of first ALAC reps. I also tried to make text consistent with the following : * we vote for the Chair, * individuals have 2 votes, as if they were an ALS (while not explicitely mentioned, I suppose individuals will choose between themselves who votes for them), * rough consensus is used for selection of ALAC members, * Chair decides (instead of NomCom) when no consensus is reached. Do we have rough consensus on this? As for the voting representatives for each ALS (and the 2 individuals), couldn't we use the NA-ALS subscribers for this? And lastly, I agree with Evan on litigation with ICANN, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com <http://www.gfisolutions.com/> www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/> ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: 31 janvier 2007 11:19 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO documents The MOU should say that selection occur "no later than" the annual meeting, which should allow us to move it up to an earlier time, whenever appropriate. In order to elect, we'll need a complete roster of approved At Large Structures and their designated representatives, which I assume we have someplace. Is that publicly posted (I assume?). What's the URL? Then we'll need appropriate notice and call for statements of interest. Bret On Jan 31, 2007, at 6:20 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: I bring this up because the current draft Operating Principles would require that the regional representatives would be elected not upon signature of the MoU, but several months later at the ICANN International Meeting, scheduled for October 2007 in Asia. Of course you are entirely free to adopt this procedure. I just wanted to highlight that you are not obligated to do so.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 31-Jan-07, at 9:20 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Some thoughts:
Since a memorandum of understanding is not a contract, it does not need to provide for jurisdiction like a normal legal contract would do. None of the other MoUs have provisions related to jurisdiction.
Well, an MoU is an agreement between parties. The items ,terms and jurisdiction can be agreed upon. Not sure what the discussion has been like in the other regions .. For North America, it will depend on those who sign the MoU is they want to include provisions related to jurisdiction, transparency and/or other clauses of mutual agreement.
Another question that I have:
It appears that most of the other RALOs are going to choose to elect their ALAC members upon signature of their MoUs. Certainly this is what the LAC region has done, electing both representatives as soon as the RALO was formed in Sao Paulo, with terms of 2 and 3 years to stagger future elections. It appears that Africa will choose to follow the same practice. It is unclear what Europe and Asia will do in this connection at present.
Open discussion on and about the issue has not yet occurred on this list on how to proceed on the issue. I look forward to an informed and well thought out discussion - on that hopefully will include input and contributions from all other regions that have, or will soon be dealing with the issue.
I bring this up because the current draft Operating Principles would require that the regional representatives would be elected not upon signature of the MoU, but several months later at the ICANN International Meeting, scheduled for October 2007 in Asia.
The draft you mention is a first draft - one that still needs considerable amount of review and comment before it can be thought of as a "real" working document. Will a consensus develop in NA on how to develop ? well, that's the real question.. regards Robert -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003) Charset: US-ASCII wj8DBQFFwPTiy4WW7wlGmwMRAtTQAJ40a/7aPX5+H3tTASA5VqIinKLPTgCg6bV4 10ekro7UzuPEiwe/VZxqhLI= =oXRa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Thanks for doing this, Luc. I like this in form and substance very much. A few comments... On http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP 1. I deleted the parenthetical in Para. 4 which read "(official languages of Canada and the USA)." Although English predominates, the United States doesn't actually have an "official" language. We've seen various attempts in recent years, both at the state and national level, to declare English the official language, but they have been largely rejected as xenophobic and anti-immigrant. In elections, you can request a ballot in Spanish, and most .GOV websites also are available in Spanish (see, http://www.usa.gov/). 2. We probably need someone to moderate the discussions and be an official point person for receipt and distribution of correspondence and announcements, so I've created a "Chair" of the General Assembly, who will be elected annually by majority vote. 2. I added new language to Paragraph 10 and a new Paragraph 11 to state that new ALAC members will be seated at the close of ICANN's annual meeting and that an annual 60 day call for Statements of Interest should precede the selection. 3. On voting for ALAC seats, I think we shouldn't. As I see it, the problem is that we will have so many organizations, of varying membership sizes, with vastly differing interests in ICANN that "one organization, one vote" won't necessarily be fair. We've talked about this in ALAC previously, and I floated a proposal that would require the NARALO to select ALAC seats by rough consensus. If consensus cannot be found, the NARALO then forwards the names of all finalists with support, including a description of the candidates' respective levels of support within the NARALO, to the ICANN Nominating Committee for final selection. This is not perfect, but I think it's preferable to elections in this context. Bret
Thanks Bret. I agree with your first points. I have questions on point 3. Your proposal to use rough consensus is interesting--and doable, I think. True, ALS's will represent vastly varying constituencies and equal representation for each ALS may not be ideal (although the same dynamics apply to ISOC Chapters and they nonetheless have equal votes in electing chapter-elected trustees on ISOC's board), but shouldn't the RALO have the final say in electing their ALAC reps? Rather than bringing in NomCom in dispute resolution, couldn't the Chair be responsible for this, as is the case in IETF working groups? I would trust the Chair to take into account the RALO's interests more than NomCom, and knowing that the Chair will decide if no consensus is reached acts as a stimulant for participants to reach consensus. Also, if we're going to use rough consensus to choose the ALAC reps, why do we vote for the Chair? Another point is participation of individual users. I had found it interesting in LACRALO's OP that they had allowed for individual user participation and think we should do the same. But should they vote on ALAC reps and the Chair nomination? LACRALO does not allow individual users to vote. If we allow them to vote, we must find a way to balance their vote with the ALS vote. What do others think of this? _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com
-----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro] Sent: 16 janvier 2007 15:13 To: Luc Faubert; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO documents
Thanks for doing this, Luc. I like this in form and substance very much. A few comments...
On http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
1. I deleted the parenthetical in Para. 4 which read "(official languages of Canada and the USA)." Although English predominates, the United States doesn't actually have an "official" language. We've seen various attempts in recent years, both at the state and national level, to declare English the official language, but they have been largely rejected as xenophobic and anti-immigrant. In elections, you can request a ballot in Spanish, and most .GOV websites also are available in Spanish (see, http://www.usa.gov/).
2. We probably need someone to moderate the discussions and be an official point person for receipt and distribution of correspondence and announcements, so I've created a "Chair" of the General Assembly, who will be elected annually by majority vote.
2. I added new language to Paragraph 10 and a new Paragraph 11 to state that new ALAC members will be seated at the close of ICANN's annual meeting and that an annual 60 day call for Statements of Interest should precede the selection.
3. On voting for ALAC seats, I think we shouldn't. As I see it, the problem is that we will have so many organizations, of varying membership sizes, with vastly differing interests in ICANN that "one organization, one vote" won't necessarily be fair. We've talked about this in ALAC previously, and I floated a proposal that would require the NARALO to select ALAC seats by rough consensus. If consensus cannot be found, the NARALO then forwards the names of all finalists with support, including a description of the candidates' respective levels of support within the NARALO, to the ICANN Nominating Committee for final selection. This is not perfect, but I think it's preferable to elections in this context.
Bret
"Luc Faubert" <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
What do others think of this?
Yes, most important of all! Please comment.
Rather than bringing in NomCom in dispute resolution, couldn't the Chair be responsible for this, as is the case in IETF working groups? I would trust the Chair to take into account the RALO's interests more than NomCom, and knowing that the Chair will decide if no consensus is reached acts as a stimulant for participants to reach consensus.
Also, if we're going to use rough consensus to choose the ALAC reps, why do we vote for the Chair?
On why the Chair shouldn't decide at the end of failure of the consensus process, I didn't think we wanted a powerful Chair. Rather, I considered the Chair more of a moderator. Also, if you knew that the Chair sided with you, you might block consensus, knowing you'd get your selection through the Chair's selection. With a committee, the outcome would be in doubt. And I completely agree with you that holding the outcome in doubt is a good thing, as it will put some modest pressure on the group to reach consensus. I suppose we could create our own committee, like a UN Security Council or our own Nominating Committee, but it seemed to me that, in keeping with the notion of a lightweight organization, better to rely on an existing structure than to build a new one. On why vote for the Chair, I thought it mattered less and would be simpler. I also considered the fact that one of the important tasks of the Chair would be to oversee the solicitation of Statements of Interest and the consensus building process, so he or she should be selected by a separate process out of time with the selection of the ALAC seats. I was thinking an election of the Chair before June 1st of each year so the call for SOIs can go out by July 1st.
Another point is participation of individual users. I had found it interesting in LACRALO's OP that they had allowed for individual user participation and think we should do the same. But should they vote on ALAC reps and the Chair nomination? LACRALO does not allow individual users to vote. If we allow them to vote, we must find a way to balance their vote with the ALS vote.
Yes, this is an interesting issue. I support the involvement of individuals in ICANN's work, but ICANN has given us an At Large built on organizational membership. The history here is ICANN's long institutional distrust of identity and authentication when an individual is only known by an electronic mailing address. The problem is solvable, but at what cost in time, effort and money? Would love to see some discussion on this and some proposals to make it work. Bret
Bret Fausett wrote:
I support the involvement of individuals in ICANN's work, but ICANN has given us an At Large built on organizational membership. The history here is ICANN's long institutional distrust of identity and authentication when an individual is only known by an electronic mailing address. The problem is solvable, but at what cost in time, effort and money? Would love to see some discussion on this and some proposals to make it work.
I think that's ICANN's problem, not necessarily NARALO's. Why should individuals be put through the hoops of creating yet more intermediary organizations just to have a way to tell ICANN what their interests as Internet users are? I suggest making individuals direct participants, as I believe EURALO is considering. Wait until authentication becomes a problem, rather than assuming it is. I think the bigger problem is low participation of real or imagined people, because the hurdles are too great for the scant payoff. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0934 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
The history here is ICANN's long institutional distrust of identity and authentication when an individual is only known by an electronic mailing address. ...
I suggest making individuals direct participants, as I believe EURALO is considering. Wait until authentication becomes a problem, rather than assuming it is.
I gather there has been some evidence in the past of ballot box stuffing. But to the extent that we work by rough consensus rather than voting, there's little incentive to do so. Other than whatever happens to pick the ALAC members, the RALO is basically just going to be a mailing list, so if people want to join, they can join. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
Wendy, I'm not sure what you mean by "I suggest making individuals direct participants". Do you see them voting for the Chair and ALAC reps? If so, do you have any ideas on how to weigh the votes of individuals against those of ALS's? Regards, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 16 janvier 2007 17:05 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO documents
Bret Fausett wrote:
I support the involvement of individuals in ICANN's work, but ICANN has given us an At Large built on organizational membership. The history here is ICANN's long institutional distrust of identity and authentication when an individual is only known by an electronic mailing address. The problem is solvable, but at what cost in time, effort and money? Would love to see some discussion on this and some proposals to make it work.
I think that's ICANN's problem, not necessarily NARALO's. Why should individuals be put through the hoops of creating yet more intermediary organizations just to have a way to tell ICANN what their interests as Internet users are?
I suggest making individuals direct participants, as I believe EURALO is considering. Wait until authentication becomes a problem, rather than assuming it is. I think the bigger problem is low participation of real or imagined people, because the hurdles are too great for the scant payoff.
--Wendy
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0934 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org
At 03:53 PM 1/18/2007, Luc Faubert wrote:
Wendy,
I'm not sure what you mean by "I suggest making individuals direct participants". Do you see them voting for the Chair and ALAC reps?
Yes
If so, do you have any ideas on how to weigh the votes of individuals against those of ALS's?
Perhaps numerically weighted, compared to the memberships of the ALSs, perhaps as a proportion of the total, perhaps as a "second house." I don't see this challenge as being much greater than the weighting of differently sized ALSs. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Add: If we do things by consensus -- and maybe that's what we do for Chair selection as well -- voting probably matters less. My suspicion is that there will be very little competition for the uncompensated, no-travel, no glory position of NARALO Chair anyway. If one responsible person comes forward, I expect everyone else will say, okay fine, thank you. On 1/18/07 1:05 PM, "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
If so, do you have any ideas on how to weigh the votes of individuals against those of ALS's?
Perhaps numerically weighted, compared to the memberships of the ALSs, perhaps as a proportion of the total, perhaps as a "second house." I don't see this challenge as being much greater than the weighting of differently sized ALSs.
On 16-Jan-07, at 3:13 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:
3. On voting for ALAC seats, I think we shouldn't. As I see it, the problem is that we will have so many organizations, of varying membership sizes, with vastly differing interests in ICANN that "one organization, one vote" won't necessarily be fair. We've talked about this in ALAC previously, and I floated a proposal that would require the NARALO to select ALAC seats by rough consensus. If consensus cannot be found, the NARALO then forwards the names of all finalists with support, including a description of the candidates' respective levels of support within the NARALO, to the ICANN Nominating Committee for final selection. This is not perfect, but I think it's preferable to elections in this context.
bret: I really like the "rough consensus" proposal, as it is consistent with how NGOs are working in the Internet Governance forum. The question is figuring out appropiate language to draft. regards Robert
ICM registry, the operator of the proposed .XXX domain for pornography has submitted a newly revised version of the proposed agreement with ICANN. Comments may be submitted through 5 Feb. See http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-05jan07.htm Any ALS that thinks that .XXX is a particularly good or bad idea, or that has issues with or comments on the rather complicated agreement should send something in. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
John: I have been following the triple X discussions in a variety of fora - ICANN, WSIS, IGF and others. informal consultations that Privaterra has done on the issue over the last year and a half have yielded conflicting comments. Here are some key points that have come up 1. Process - consensus on this point From a process stand point - most seem to believe that ICM registry's application is a test of the ICANN process on new TLD creation. As it has cleared all the hurdles so far - it should be approved. Though many find the subject matter objectionable, it is believed that ICANN can only deal with process issues - as such - it should be approved. To many - ICANN finally authorizing the TLD, and its insertion in the root file will demonstrate that ICANN processes (though slow at times) do in fact work. 2. Rights - Freedom of Expression / Gender issues Few, if any organizations from the Human rights and Gender rights community are ALS members. So, though they might have expressed public views on the issue - it is likely they have NOT submitted their comments through ICANN channels such as ALAC and/or directly to staff. Informal consultations on this issue have yielded a variety of views. For many groups - the issue is seen as a freedom of expression issue - not permitting the creation would be seen as censorship. Thus, the TLD should be approved. Gender activists, however see it differently - many organizations, particularly those from the developing south express deep concern . For them, it is a complex issue one where the religious right and the vatican are having too much of a say. The issue is not seen as just an ICANN issue, but in the larger lens of sexual and reproductive rights. The TLD should for many of them, not even have been considered in the first place. Personally, my view is as follows ... I think the domain is a problematic one. From a process standpoint - it should be approved. However, given the nature and subject matter it deals with - rights protections related to freedom of expression, exploitation, among others must be included. Compliance with existing international treaties and protocols needs to be included included in any agreement. As vulnerable groups will be affected by this decision - Protections and complaints processes need to be in place before introduction into the root zone can take place. respectfully yours Robert On 18-Jan-07, at 2:38 AM, John L wrote:
ICM registry, the operator of the proposed .XXX domain for pornography has submitted a newly revised version of the proposed agreement with ICANN. Comments may be submitted through 5 Feb.
See http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-05jan07.htm
Any ALS that thinks that .XXX is a particularly good or bad idea, or that has issues with or comments on the rather complicated agreement should send something in.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org
Personally, my view is as follows ... I think the domain is a problematic one.
Indeed. It basically forces ICANN to decide whether they are the modest group of technical coordinators they purport to be, or a political policy organization. In the former case, they'd treat .XXX like any other application and approve it if they met the specs for technical and financial adequacy, which without question it does. In the latter case, they'd use some criteria to decide which applications are meritorious and which aren't. So far, they've managed to do a botch job and approve a trickle of domains based on criteria which nobody, I believe including the ICANN board, can understand or explain. My inclination would be to say that top level domains are only a big deal because there's an artificially limited supply, so lose the chokepoint and start issuing domains at a faster and predictable pace. If .XXX were the 70th or 700th domain rather than the 7th, would people really care? Paul Hoffman and I wrote a joint blog entry a year ago suggesting how to do this. See http://weblog.johnlevine.com/ICANN/whydom.html Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
On 1/18/07 9:59 AM, "Robert Guerra" <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
From a process standpoint - it should be approved. However, given the nature and subject matter it deals with - rights protections related to freedom of expression, exploitation, among others must be included. Compliance with existing international treaties and protocols needs to be included included in any agreement. As vulnerable groups will be affected by this decision - Protections and complaints processes need to be in place before introduction into the root zone can take place.
My view is somewhat similar to yours, Robert, but I see the policy overlay and enforcement coming after .XXX is entered into the root zone and is accepting registrations. Within a year after its introduction, I am fairly certain you will see legislation in the United States requiring that content deemed offensive to minors be served only from host computers addressed by .XXX domains. Back in 1990s, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the infamous "Communications Decency Act," but in a concurring opinion Justice O'Connor opined that a future law which zoned offensive content into a specific place (i.e.,.XXX) might be acceptable. After the U.S. passes such a law, other countries will do the same. Then the countries that have such laws will try to convince other countries to adopt such laws, and we'll see treaties, trade agreements and other international mechanisms for getting everyone on the same page. (Sort of like the way we've seen the U.S. and Europe pressure other IP rights.) But I don't think you can do this before you have the TLD, especially not within ICANN fora, or else it will never get done. Bret
participants (9)
-
Bret Fausett -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacob Malthouse -
John L -
Luc Faubert -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Robert Guerra -
Wendy Seltzer