<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div>It truly is a tricky situation, Kathy. It will be interesting to see how the Registrars respond to our queries in this area. The more sophisticated Registrars, and those who are paid to represent them, will make exactly the argument you are making. A step back from that, and more convincing from my point of view, will be the argument that freedom of contract should allow parties to make such deals outside the ICANN framework. </div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 28 Feb 2017, at 02:38, Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Maybe. Don't we have a bylaw that says ICANN is to stay out of
the content space? We have never wanted ICANN to become the
regulator of speech and content, and with the transition, I
thought that we affirmed that. So we may be in a Catch-22: we
don't want private agreements to bypass speech/expression
protections, and this type of regulation does not belong within
ICANN. <br>
</p>
<p>If that is the case, now what do we do? <br>
</p>
<p>Best, Kathy<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/27/2017 8:44 PM, Rafik Dammak
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CAH5sThmXfnw21KWzXfj8vreOV3aH68OmcQqwQbEGVR0B7Whj-A@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_extra">Hi Ed,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">I was basically suggesting to bring
it to ICANN space. we are in violent agreement.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Best,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Rafik</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2017-02-28 10:41 GMT+09:00 Edward
Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-7089366036433192204AppleMailSignature"><span class="gmail-">
<blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br>
</span></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">with
the regard to Healthy Domain Initiative and
PIR's SCDRP, can we follow a more positive and
proactive approach and asking them to get
involved in more Multistakeholder fashion?<br>
</span></font></blockquote>
</span><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br>
<span class="gmail-">So more multi-stakeholder
private agreements outside of ICANN, meaning all
we do here is compromise to set industry floors
which are then used to build maximalist protection
policies threatening free speech with no guarantee
of due process or appropriate privacy protection
through private agreements with some sort of
multi-stakeholder veneer? No thanks. If the real
action is going to be the downmarket private
agreements who in their right mind will volunteer
to do work in ICANN? This process is a direct
threat to the ICANN model with the logical end
result being progressives calling for government
intervention to prevent industry cartels from
setting market conditions that threaten every
value the NCSG was created to protect. Need I
suggest that the day we have to call on the
governments of the world to protect our free
speech rights online is the day there no longer is
such a thing. Of course when what NCSG member
Rebecca McKinnon so brilliantly called
Facebookistan, when applied to governance of
social media by terms of service boilerplate
agreements, is extended in a modified fashion to
the entire dns there may be no other option.<br>
<br>
The process stinks, the policy stinks and this
group needs to stand up for true multi-stakeholder
principles and demand industry standards, floors
and ceilings, be set inside ICANN, not outside of
it. Otherwise the Donuts - MPAA agreement is the
beginning of the end of this model of internet
governance. <br>
<br>
No compromise, no surrender.<br>
<br>
Ed</span></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>NCSG-PC mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>