On 12/08/15 19:03, Paul Twomey wrote:
into the bylaws we will directing the attention of various parties to new ways to try to halt/affect ICANN decisions and operations. This may be a good thing
I submit that it is.
but we need to consider the implications very carefully.
I think this is correct.
real issue on ccTLD agreements. I have to say that I am increasingly wondering whether at least the ccTLD links should be exempted or at least carefully prescribed.
I suggest it is the ccTLD area where (careful) attention to respect for fundamental rights IS needed. ICANN has no role in directing how a ccTLD manager sets their policy. That is a matter for subsidiarity and is clearly delineated in the ICANN bylaws setting up the ccNSO, so how this affects ICANN, is principally, how it affects the IANA role, and the policy making role. As a former CEO of ICANN, from a particular timeframe, you understandably have a certain Weltanschaung - and perhaps it is one which views ICANN as giving out the authority to run a ccTLD. I'm not sure that this is the correct view. But I am certain that whatever the source authority of ICANN's role, (i.e. a contract with the US government, tablets of stone from God etc), that ICANN surely needs embrace certain minimum standards in all its work (i.e gTLD and ccTLD) which, inter alia, must include - Protection of Property (including intellectual property) Rights - Protection of Private and Family Life - Protection of Free Expression - Right to fair hearing before independent and impartial tribunal And .AFRICA (and before that .XXX) is not the first time ICANN has been see to be lacking in the latter, of particular note.