Agree - I like Ed's formulation. On 1/28/2015 1:54 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > I very much like Ed’s approach to this, and think it is definitely > something worth bringing up with the board. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Jan 26, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > >> Hi Avri, >> ᐧ >> >> >> Aren't various government and intergovernmental actions forcing >> ICANN to take action based on content. >> >> >> >> 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/alleged/ criminals. How is ICANN being forced to do anything? >> >> "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? >> >> 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? >> >> >> 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? >> >> 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. >> >> 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... >> >> 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 ( >> http://www.ccc.de/en/updates/2014/ccc-censored-in-uk). As bad as >> national filters are they pale in terms of what ICANN has the >> capability of doing.. >> >> 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. >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> >> >> >> avri >> >> On 25-Jan-15 20:33, 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 >>> >