Agree - important topic. On 1/26/2015 7:36 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > I very much like the proposal to remind ICANN of the importance to > stay out of content regulation (leave that to legal / judicial > processes). Thanks for the suggestion, Ed! > > Best, > Robin > > > On Jan 25, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > >> Hi Rafik, >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> 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… >> >> >> 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. ( >> http://domainincite.com/14842-icann-helps-bust-russian-child-porn-ring ). >> 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. >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> Ed >> >> ᐧ >> >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Rafik Dammak >> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> We need to get 3 topics to discuss with the ICANN board at >> singapore meeting. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> On Jan 20, 2015 10:32 AM, "Rafik Dammak" <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> 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. >> >> we will try to get 3 topics and send them 1 week prior to the >> session. >> please propose topics and suggest short descriptions . we >> will conduct later a polling to pick-up the 3 topics among >> the proposals. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> >