<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I think you have said this very well Ed. Governments have been
using their position to put intense pressure on ICANN to do what
they have been unable to solve through the Cybercrime treaty, mlats,
and other mechanisms. It appears to be an unholy bargain of the
scratch my bag and I will let you do this variety, and it interferes
with human rights. Having a solid position on this point should be
front and centre in our framing of the human rights discussion, and
the public interest discussion, because this has been going on in
the name of the "public interest". If we as civil society disagree
strongly on this point, we had better start thrashing it out in an
organized fashion.<br>
cheers Stephanie Perrin<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15-01-26 7:50 AM, Edward Morris
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHdAZHbGgFRS8+1KYcgbK00-JoGn1XAvh_3C_ea-4DbGLvpNEA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Avri,<br>
<div hspace="streak-pt-mark" style="max-height:1px"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" style="width:0px; max-height:0px;"
src="https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aZWdtb3JyaXMxQHRvYXN0Lm5ldA%3D%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=fe2e4e25-4b9f-4e3c-980e-13e825b32d2e"><font
color="#ffffff" size="1">ᐧ</font></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033"><br>
Aren't various government and intergovernmental actions
forcing ICANN to take action based on content.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In the two instances mentioned, I'm unaware of any
jurisdictionally appropriate court order "forcing" ICANN
to engage in quasi law enforcement activities. Perhaps I'm
wrong but I'm unaware of any ICANN staff member or
official being detained or physically threatened, a.k.a.
"forced", to assist law enforcement in tracking down <i>alleged</i> criminals.
How is ICANN being forced to do anything? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"Pressured" might be a better term and, of course,
ICANN is often pressured to do many things. One of the
things I would hope the Board could clarify for us is how
ICANN determines which pressures to respond to and which
pressures not to respond to. For example, there are
jurisdictions that classify gay and lesbian sexual
activity as being deviant and impermissible behaviour
equivalent to that of adult sex with children. Does ICANN
cooperate with law enforcement authorities in identifying
those responsible for putting online gay and lesbian
content? One mans terrorist is another mans freedom
fighter: is it ICANN's role to assist law enforcement in
identifying those responsible for websites some may
believe aids and abets terrorism while others believe the
same websites assist "freedom fighters"? Who decides what
pressures to yield to? What is the procedure for making
such decisions? Should there not be transparency in such
processes so that those making the decisions are held
responsible for their judgement and actions?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033"> Unfortunately we
keep saying they have no business discussing content
based issue, yet, others impose these issues on ICANN.
How do we give the Board and Staff guidance,
recommendations and advice on how to handle the contents
tissue imposed on ICANN without dealing with it?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Pressure goes both ways. If ICANN Board and staff
perceive no blow back from their incursions into content
regulation they will continue to do it. Why not? At the
NCPH meeting Fadi reached out to the community for
guidance: in some ways it could be seen as a plea to "blow
back". If we in the noncommercial community strongly
direct ICANN to stay out of content regulation it gives
Fadi and others something to point to to justify resisting
pressures to get involved in content control. If we remain
silent in response to Fadi's invitation to direct ICANN in
this matter, then it would inappropriate to hold ICANN
responsible for decisions made to ban content we actually
like. First it was child pornography, now ICANN is
considering getting involved in intellectual monopoly
violations, what is next? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Our direction to ICANN should be "just say no". There
may be times ICANN is commanded through legal processes to
do certain things. When those things involve content ICANN
should resist to the fullest extent permitted by
applicable laws. ICANN's response needs to be uniformly
"we don't do content". Period.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yet if ICANN is going to do content, something beyond
it's mission statement and appearing nowhere in it's
Bylaws, there need to be procedures developed so content
regulation no longer continues to be done on an ad hoc
basis. There should be procedures in place, the community
needs to be involved, standards need to be promulgated and
publicised. I, as a noncommercial user without extravagant
resources, should have the same ability to "force" ICANN
to delete content I find objectionable as the i.p.
industry does to "force" ICANN to chase after Bulgarians
whose content they find objectionable. Personally, I find
the militarisation of the internet to be far more
objectionable and dangerous than websites offering
allegedly "stolen" telenovelas. I believe certain online
actions by governments contravene international
humanitarian law. I know ICANN has the technical
capability to stop some of these illegal actions. Should I
not be able to "force" ICANN to act to prevent these
illegal actions? I hope the answer is 'no' because ICANN
does not do content, but if it does...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Once ICANN gets involved in content it's a slippery
slope with a final destination I presume many of us would
find unappealing. One only has to look at the United
Kingdom for an indication as to what might happen. Here in
the U.K. filters initially designed to ban child
pornography are now used to ban many types of material
some find objectionable. One of the latest sites to run
afoul of the censors was the Chaos Computer Club ( <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ccc.de/en/updates/2014/ccc-censored-in-uk">http://www.ccc.de/en/updates/2014/ccc-censored-in-uk</a>
). As bad as national filters are they pale in terms of
what ICANN has the capability of doing.. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, Avri, the direction to ICANN should be to stay out
of content regulation. Period. However, if they are
determined to have a California public benefits
corporation engage in censorship with global effect it
needs to be done in an open, transparent manner with
defined conditions and standards available to all with
community participation. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ed</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033"> <br>
avri<br>
<br>
<div>On 25-Jan-15 20:33, Edward Morris wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Rafik,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’d like to suggest a topic
that has not had high visibility in our
stakeholder group in recent years, yet is a big
part of the NCSG DNA: the belief that ICANN should
not be involved in content control. It’s part of
our belief in free expression and it’s something
that very slowly ICANN is getting involved in
fairly blatantly. I think it would be productive
for us to raise the flag in this area to get word
to the Board that we’re noticing this and that we
do not approve of this mission creep.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ICANN has always been involved
in content to some degree. The most visible
activity in this area came during the .XXX battles
where contractual language specified forms of
prohibited content. Obviously the new gTLD
programme involves, in many ways, content
classification. But recently…</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This autumn we learned that
ICANN had employees going through corporate
records of firms in Panama to help law enforcement
track down an alleged child pornography ring. ( <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://domainincite.com/14842-icann-helps-bust-russian-child-porn-ring"
target="_blank">http://domainincite.com/14842-icann-helps-bust-russian-child-porn-ring</a>
). Now Fadi tells us they are attempting to figure
out what to do with the case of a Bulgarian man
with servers in Costa Rica who is allegedly
putting i.p. ingringing content online ( NCSG –
CEO meeting, NCPH intersessional transcript, p.
19-20). This is certainly a long way from names
and numbers. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We know Fadi’s perspective.
According to Mr. Chehade, ICANN is under pressure.
It’s one of the reasons ICANN is supposedly
getting involved in the NMI. Yet during the
interessional meeting Fadi also stated several
times that ICANN needed community input to help
determine “how far does ICANN want to go?” on
matters like these (intersessional transcript, p.
10). We need to tell him that ICANN has no role to
play in policing content online.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Although we know Fadi’s
position (both revelations mentioned above came as
a result of Fadi speaking extemporaneously) and
expressed confusion on these matters we haven’t
really heard from the Board about situations like
these. On the one hand we’re told during the
transition that ICANN has a limited remit and is
going to stick to it. On the other hand we have
ICANN employees searching through Central American
corporate records to assist authorities in
policing content. I think it would be appropriate
for us to express concern about ICANN’s
incursions, both actual and contemplated, into
content and to try to get clarification as to the
Board’s views and intentions on the matter.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ed </p>
<div><img moz-do-not-send="true">ᐧ</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at
10:23 PM, Rafik Dammak <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com"
target="_blank">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<p dir="ltr">Hi everyone,</p>
<p dir="ltr">We need to get 3 topics to discuss
with the ICANN board at singapore meeting.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Best, </p>
<p dir="ltr">Rafik </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 20, 2015 10:32
AM, "Rafik Dammak" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com"
target="_blank">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">Hi everyone,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>like every time in preparation for
ICANN meeting, we have to discuss what
kind of topics/issues we want to raise
with ICANN board members when we meet
them.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>we will try to get 3 topics and send
them 1 week prior to the session. </div>
<div>please propose topics and suggest
short descriptions . we will conduct
later a polling to pick-up the 3 topics
among the proposals.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best Regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rafik</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>