[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
David Post
david.g.post at gmail.com
Tue Nov 24 02:11:19 UTC 2015
I think all of these would be permissible under
the language proposed. That is, I think ICANN
can continue to make policies in these areas,
because all are reasonably appropriate to the
Mission (coordinate the development and
implementation of policies for which uniform or
coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to
facilitate the openness, interoperability,
resilience, security and/or stability of the
Domain Name System), provided that they were the
subject of a consensus multi-stakeholder process.
And none of them involve imposing contractual
conditions or obligations on the conduct of
registrants except in circumstances where the
registration causes harm to third parties ( e.g.,
"resolution of disputes regarding the
registration of domain names (as opposed to the
use of such domain names, but including (with
respect to registrars) where such policies take
into account use of the domain names," ) or
involves harm to "the stable and secure operation
of the DNS (e.g., "Maintenance of and access to
accurate and up-to-date information concerning
Registered Names and name servers").
David
At 06:38 PM 11/23/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:
>Does your proposed language permit all of the
>activities permitted under the RAA and RA
>Consensus Policy spec? Specifically, are any of these items excluded:
>
>1. . Consensus Policies shall relate to one or more of the following:
>a. Issues for which uniform or coordinated
>resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate
>interoperability, security and/or stability of
>the Internet, Registrar Services, Registry
>Services, or the Domain Name System ("DNS");
>b. Functional and performance specifications
>for the provision of Registrar and Registry Services;
>c. Security and Stability of the registry database for the TLD;
>d. Registrar and registry policies reasonably
>necessary to implement Consensus Policies
>relating to a gTLD registry, registry operations, or registrars;
>e. Resolution of disputes regarding the
>registration of domain names (as opposed to the
>use of such domain names, but including (with
>respect to registrars) where such policies take
>into account use of the domain names); or
>f. Restrictions on cross-ownership of
>registry operators and registrars or resellers
>and regulations and restrictions with respect to
>registrar and registry operations and the use of
>registry and registrar data in the event that a
>registry operator and a registrar or Reseller are affiliated.
>
>2. Such categories of issues referred to in
>Section 1 above shall include, without limitation:
>a. Principles for allocation of registered
>names in a TLD (e.g., first-come/first-served,
>timely renewal, holding period after expiration);
>b. Prohibitions on warehousing of or
>speculation in domain names by registries or registrars;
>c. Reservation of registered names in a TLD
>that may not be registered initially or that may
>not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related
>to (i) avoidance of confusion among or
>misleading of users, (ii) intellectual property,
>or (iii) the technical management of the DNS or
>the Internet (e.g., establishment of reservations of names from registration);
>d. Maintenance of and access to accurate and
>up-to-date information concerning Registered Names and name servers;
>e. Procedures to avoid disruptions of domain
>name registrations due to suspension or
>termination of operations by a registry operator
>or a registrar, including procedures for
>allocation of responsibility (i) for serving
>registered domain names in a TLD affected by
>such a suspension or termination and (ii) among
>continuing registrars of the Registered Names
>sponsored in a TLD by a registrar losing
>accreditation; and (iii) the transfer of
>registration data upon a change in registrar
>sponsoring one or more Registered Names.
>
>J. Beckwith Burr
>Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367
>/ <http://www.neustar.biz>neustar.biz
>
>From: David Post <<mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>david.g.post at gmail.com>
>Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 6:25 PM
>To: Becky Burr <<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>becky.burr at neustar.biz>
>Cc: "Silver, Bradley"
><<mailto:Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>,
>Alan Greenberg
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>,
>Greg Shatan
><<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com>,
>"Mueller, Milton L"
><<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>milton at gatech.edu>,
>Accountability Community
><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
>
>
>Here's my crack at the restrictive language that
>should be included. I tried to leave the the
>statement in the current draft as is, but made
>several additions to it that hopefully cover the
>things some of us are very concerned about.
>
>The language below is all from the latest draft,
>except for the added language IN ALL CAPS:
>
>
>***************
>The Mission of The Internet Corporation for
>Assigned Names and Numbers is to ensure the
>stable and secure operation of the Internet's
>unique identifier systems as described below. Specifically, ICANN:
>
>1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of
>names in the root zone of the Domain Name System
>("DNS"). In this role, ICANN’s Mission is to
>coordinate the development and implementation of policies:
>
>For which uniform or coordinated resolution is
>reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness,
>interoperability, resilience, security and/or
>stability of the Domain Name System;
>
>That are developed through a bottom-up,
>consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and
>designed to ensure the stable and secure
>operation of the Internet’s unique names systems. . . .
>
>ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and
>only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission.
>
>ICANN shall not (a) impose regulations on
>services (i.e., any software process that
>accepts connections from the Internet) that use
>the Internet’s unique identifiers, or the
>content that such services carry or provide, OR
>(B) IMPOSE -- DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY --
>CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS OR CONDITIONS ON THE
>CONDUCT OR BEHAVIOR OF DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANTS,
>EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT (1) THE DOMAIN NAME
>REGISTRATION IS CAUSING HARM TO THIRD PARTIES OR
>(2) THE CONDUCT OR BEHAVIOR IS CAUSING HARM TO
>THE STABLE AND SECURE OPERATION OF THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM.
>
>lCANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter
>into and enforce agreements with contracted parties IN SERVICE OF its Mission.
>
>************************
>
>
>The language added above attempts to rein in
>ICANN's ability to "regulate" things other than
>the registration and allocation of names. So,
>for instance, insofar as a TLD has been
>designated to have a particular meaning (to
>imply certain characteristics of those who
>register in that domain - e.g. *.pharmacy or
>*.bank ), ICANN can legitimately impose
>contractual conditions on registrants to satisfy
>those characteristics, because otherwise the
>registration of the name is misleading and can
>potentially cause harm. At the same time (to
>use Bruce's earlier example) ICANN cannot impose
>contractual conditions/obligations on whomever
>has registered computer.expert (or
>davidpost.org) regarding the use of Apple's
>trademarks, because in that case, while there
>might well be harm (to Apple), the harm does not
>flow from the registration of the domains
>computer.expert or davidpost.org, nor is it the
>kind of harm that somehow threatens the stability or security of the DNS.
>
>David
>
>
>
>d
>
>
>At 04:18 PM 11/23/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:
>
>>First, I believe that Registrars agreed to this
>>provision in the course of negotiations. While
>>I would like a mechanism for contracted parties
>>to challenge ICANN’s “take it or
>>donâ€don’t sign†negotiating
>>ultimatums, this doesnesn̢۪t fall into that
>>bucket as far as I am concerned.ed. And I
>>agree with the general principle that contracts
>>should be enforceable by the parties to the agreement.
>>
>>Beyond that, the language of 3.18 in question
>>imposes obligations on registrars – maintain
>>aan abuse pooint of contact, investigate
>>allegations regarding illegal activities, take
>>appropriate action, so I don̢۪t think that
>>amounts to regulating registrants. I also agree
>>that there are situations in which illegal
>>activity could impact the stability and
>>security of the Internet̢۪s unique
>>identifiers (e.g., particulcularly involving
>>malicious DNS exploits, etc.), so the provision
>>seems to me to be appropriate in furtherance of ICANN̢۪s Mission.
>>
>>The problem, of course,se, is that not all
>>illegal activity threatens the stability and
>>security of the DNS; behavior that is illegal
>>in some jurisdictions is not illegal in all
>>jurisdictions; and the legality/illegality of
>>a particular activity is generally a
>>determination left to sovereigns or
>>courts. So, what constitutes an “
>>appropriate respoponse†is going to vary
>>from case to case. Theoretically, ICANN could
>>choose to enforce the requirement in a manner
>>that exceeded the scope of its authority, e.g.,
>>it could begin to say that registrars who do
>>not suspend registrations in response to
>>allegations that an underlying site is
>>defamatory are in breach. But I think 3.18
>>itself is a legitimate contract provision that ICANN should be able to enforce.
>>
>>J. Beckwith Burr
>>Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>>Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile:
>>+1.202.352.6367 / <http://www.neustar.biz>neustar.biz
>>
>>From: <Silver>, Bradley
>><<mailto:Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com> Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>
>>Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 2:37 PM
>>To: Becky Burr
>><<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>becky.burr at neustar.biz
>> >, David Post <<mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>david.g.post at gmail.com >
>>Cc: Alan Greenberg
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>> >, Greg Shatan
>><<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> >, "Mueller, Milton L"
>><<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>milton at gatech.edu>,
>>Accountability Community
>><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
>>
>>Thanks Becky,
>>
>>The question is not whether ICANN’s
>>authority to enforce policies regarding
>>resolutionns of domain name disputes can be
>>stretched to websites, the question is whether
>>under the RAA, ICANN can validly require
>>registrars to maintain an abuse contact and
>>take certain steps in response to reports of
>>Illegal Activity – which is defined to include
>>conduct involving use of a Registered
>>Name. Putting aside the issue of defamation
>>and infringement etc, let̢۪s as assume for a
>>moment that the Illegal Activity in question is
>>not inherent in the domain name itself but
>>rather involves the use of the name, either
>>directly or indirectly. And let̢۪s further
>>assume that such uh use is something that a
>>reasonable person might argue impacts
>>ICANN̢۪s ability to ensure the stable and
>>securcure operation of the Internet's unique
>>identifier systems. I had thought that the
>>language we were searching for would permit
>>ICANN to act in those circumstances. Unless
>>you are you taking the position that we know
>>all we need to know today about what those
>>circumstances might be, and whether ICANN̢۪s
>>activity could be ie impinged by the language
>>we have been discussing, then you must
>>acknowledge that we are doing brain surgery in
>>the dark here by trying to constrain ICANN̢۪s
>>mission wn with language that has imprecise meaning.
>>
>>Bradley
>>
>>
>>
>>From: Burr, Becky
>>[<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz ]
>>Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 1:38 PM
>>To: Silver, Bradley; David Post
>>Cc: Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Mueller,
>>Milton L; Accountability Cross Community
>>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
>>
>>Bradley,
>>
>>3.7.7.9 speaks about the registration and use
>>of a “Registered Name.†A "Registered
>>Name" refers to a domain name within the domain
>>of a gTLD
about which a <gTLDD Registry
>>Operator (or an Affiliate or subcontractor
>>thereof engaged in providing Registry Services)
>>maintains data in a Registry Database, arranges
>>for such maintenance, or derives revenue from
>>such maintenance.†To me, that refers to
>>registration and use of a string, and not a web site.
>>
>>That is also consistent with the registrar form
>>of the “picket fencece," which allows ICANN
>>to unilaterally obligate registrars to comply
>>with policies (a) covering specific topics and
>>(b) developed in accordance with specified
>>procedures designed to ensure that they are
>>supported by consensus. The RAA spec (Section
>>4 of the 2001 RAA and Spec 4 in the 2013 RAA)
>>covers policies regarding resolution of
>>disputes regarding the registration of domain
>>names (as opposed to the use of such domain
>>names, but including where such policies take
>>into account use of the domain names.) So,
>>under the Registrar̢۪s fs form of picket
>>fence, if ICANN has developed a Consensus
>>Policy that covers resolution of disputes about
>>registrations (e.g., the UDRP, the Rapid
>>Suspension policy, etc.), and that policy takes
>>use into account (I.e, in the case of the UDRP
>>for example, registration of a name “in bad
>>faith†as defined in the UDRP), it, it is within ICANN’s authority.
>> sp;
>>The question is, could ICANN̢۪s authority to
>>to enforce policies regarding resolution of
>>disputes regarding the registration of domain
>>names be stretched to construe use of a web
>>site (as opposed to the string itself) for
>>defamation? I agree with David, I "don't think
>>they have that power at present, I don't think
>>they have had that since the beginning of
>>(ICANN) time, and I sure as heck don't want to
>>them to have it once they are in control of the
>>root and USG oversight is removed.â€
>>
>>Becky
>>
>>J. Beckwith Burr
>>Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>>Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367
>>/<http://www.neustar.biz>neustar.biz
>>
>>From: <Silver>, Bradley
>><<mailto:Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com> Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>
>>Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 11:47 AM
>>To: David Post <<mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>david.g.post at gmail.com >
>>Cc: Becky Burr
>><<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>becky.burr at neustar.biz
>> >, Alan Greenberg
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>> >, Greg Shatan
>><<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> >, "Mueller, Milton L"
>><<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>milton at gatech.edu>,
>>Accountability Community
>><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
>>
>>There is a difference between ICANN having
>>power to “enforce local lawsâ€, as yas you
>>put it, and ICANN̢۪s ability to enforce its
>>agregreements, which have as a reference point,
>>the conduct of “illegal activity†via an
>>indirect use of of a domain name. Let̢۪s
>>be very cy clear – we are talking about the
>>latter; the question off whether the
>>enforcement of specific provisions on their
>>face, would amount to the kind of regulation
>>you and others would like to see
>>prohibited. There are a number of forms that
>>enforcement could take which don’™t make
>>ICANN a proxy for local law enforcement. For
>>example, one manifestation of this concept is
>>in RAA 3.18.1, which talks about the
>>maintenance of an abuse contact for reports of
>>illegal activity, which will trigger an
>>obligation to investigate and respond
>>appropriately. RAA 3.7.7.9 is a logical
>>companion to this provision, since it ensures
>>that registrars are able, in accordance with
>>their own terms of service, to address abuse
>>complaints involving illegal activity, as
>>between them and the registrant involved. We
>>know there is a broader discussion about what
>>that should entail, but I am concerned that the
>>language being proposed to prohibit any
>>“direct or indirect†regulatulation will
>>be used to argue that these contractual
>>provisions are outside ICANN̢۪s mission on their face.
>>
>>From: David Post
>>[<mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com ]
>>Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 11:22 AM
>>To: Silver, Bradley
>>Cc: Burr, Becky; Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan;
>>Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Cross Community
>>Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
>>
>>
>>Well, this is illuminating ...
>>
>>I take it that at least you and Greg (and
>>perhaps others) think that it is within ICANN's
>>power to enforce, via its power over the DNS
>>entries, local pornography laws, or consumer
>>protection laws, or defamation laws, or ... on
>>the grounds that registrants have to promise
>>not to infringe any rights of any third parties
>>in any activity they undertake "on the website
>>to which the domain points." So ICANN can set
>>up a Pornography Dispute Resolution Procedure,
>>a Consumer Protection Dispute Resolution
>>Procedure, a Defamation Dispute Resolution
>>Procedure, to enforce these promises that
>>registrants have supposedly made and to take down violators.
>>
>>My response is: I don't think they have that
>>power at present, I don't think they have had
>>that since the beginning of (ICANN) time, and I
>>sure as heck don't want to them to have it once
>>they are in control of the root and USG oversight is removed.
>>
>>David
>>
>>
>>At 10:51 AM 11/23/2015, Silver, Bradley wrote:
>>
>>
>>David,
>>
>>That’s an overly narrow reading of RA RAA
>>AA 3.7.7.9 Â - its not only that the
>>registration of thee Registered Name infringes
>>or its “direct use⢀, but also that
>>the manner in which is indirectly< is
>>used. I can’t see how the â
>>“i€Ã
“indirect†use of the
>>domaindomain cannot also be attriibuted to
>>infringing uses on the website to which the
>>domain points.  If that’s¬â„¢s not at
>>least an “ind¬Ã
“indirectâ€157;
>>use, I don’t know what is. Â Â ‚ Àš
>>‚ Â While I agree with your conclusion, I
>>don’t ™t agregree with the reasoning,
>>and I expect there are others (like Milton) who
>>would like to see the clear meaning of the
>>language of 3.7.7.9 changed through the
>>application of the “no regulation†sentence.Ãe.Â
>>br>
>>Bradley
>> From: David Post [mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com]
>>Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 10:37 AM
>>To: Burr, Becky
>>Cc: Alan Greenberg; Silver, Bradley; Greg
>>Shatan; Mueller, Milton L; Accountability Cross Community
>>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
>>
>>At 10:03 AM 11/23/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:
>>
>>
>>Are we seriously arguing that RAA 3.7.7.9 is outside the picket fence?
>>
>>No, I don't think this was out of scope,
>>because it concerns the "registration" of the
>>name and the manner in which THE NAME is
>>used. 3.7.7.9 does not say, in my opnion, that
>>the registrant has to promise that it is not
>>doing anything at a website that is infringing;
>>the promise is that the name is not being used in an infringing manner.
>>
>>D
>>
>>At 10:03 AM 11/23/2015, Burr, Becky wrote:
>>
>>
>>Are we seriously arguing that RAA 3.7.7.9 is outside the picket fence?
>>
>>Section 3.7.7.9 of the RAA has been in place
>>from the beginning of time. Here is the language from the 2001 RAA:
>>3.7.7.9 The Registered Name Holder shall
>>represent that, to the best of the Registered
>>Name Holder's knowledge and belief, neither the
>>registration of the Registered Name nor the
>>manner in which it is directly or indirectly
>>used infringes the legal rights of any third party.
>>Here it is in the 1999 RAA:
>>7. g. The SLD holder shall represent that, to
>>the best of the SLD holder's knowledge and
>>belief, neither the registration of the SLD
>>name nor the manner in which it is directly or
>>indirectly used infringes the legal rights of a third party.
>>
>>As someone who was part of the team drafting
>>and negotiating the 1999 RAA, I can assure you
>>that the inclusion of this requirement in the
>>RAA was intended to be within the scope of ICANNâ€Ã¢„„¢s M¢s Mission.
>>
>>
>>J. Beckwith Burr
>>Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
>>Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile:
>>+1.202.352.6367 / <http://www.neustar.biz>neustar.biz
>>
>>From: Alan Greenberg
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca >
>>Date: Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 10:06 PM
>>To: "Silver, Bradley"
>><<mailto:Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>
>>Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>, Greg Shatan
>><<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> >, "Mueller, Milton L" <<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>milton at gatech.edu>
>>Cc: Accountability Community
>><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
>>
>>I rarely fill people's mailboxes just to do this, but in this case;
>>
>>+1
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>
>>At 22/11/2015 08:31 PM, Silver, Bradley wrote:
>>
>>
>>I want to echo and support
>>Greg̢۪s resposposponse
>>below.elow. sp; Milton̢۪s
>>position that an en n en existinting pr
>>provision of the RAA is out of the scope of
>>ICANNÃÂ墉‚¬ÃƒÂ¢ÃƒÂ¢„Âޢs
>>mission is illuminating. sp; I had beenn
>>operating on the (hopeful) presumption that
>>what we were attempting to do was find a way to
>>describe ICANN̢۪s missionion
>>in a manner that refleflects its cu cu current
>>activities, and avoid drafting anything that
>>could adversely impact its continued ability to
>>do so while clearly preventing any undue
>>expansion. If those who support the language
>>in the second sentence are seeking a way to
>>attack the validity or enforceability of
>>existing contractual provisions, then the
>>concerns of the board are not only well
>>founded, they are grossly understated.
>>
>>From:
>><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>[
>>mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org]
>>On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
>>Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 3:01 AM
>>To: Mueller, Milton L
>>Cc: Accountability Cross Community
>>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
>>
>>Milton,
>>
>>I strongly disagree that 3.7.7 is out of scope
>>of ICANN's mission. I also don't think it's
>>useless, nor is it an uncommon provision in
>>many terms of service and similar
>>agreements. 3.7.7 only asks for the
>>registrant's "knowledge and belief" -- so they
>>are not required to know whether they are
>>infringing anywhere under any
>>jurisdiction. They are only required to make
>>reference to what they already know -- an
>>entirely reasonable and ordinary requirement.
>>
>>Is it your intent that the new provision we are
>>discussing places 3.7.7 out of scope, and thus
>>serves as a basis for an IRP or other challenge
>>seeking to nullify 3.7.7? Since 3.7.7 is only
>>an "example," what other sections are you trying to place out of scope?
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Greg
>>
>>On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Mueller,
>>Milton L <<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> >
>> > See section 3.7.7 of the registrar accreditation agreement (RAA):
>> >
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_approved-2Dwith-2Dspecs-2D2013-2D09-2D17-2Den&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=11R4XkcvGwOIsQkhhyE47Z7B829g9E2Cip1amJSBQu0&s=5ThaiusaRSYwZuxG3vlUf8hTsMh251yjw_-T7i4DOFg&e=>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en
>>
>> >
>> > 3.7.7.9 The Registered Name Holder shall
>> represent that, to the best of the
>> > Registered Name Holder's knowledge and belief, neither the registration of
>> > the Registered Name nor the manner in which
>> it is directly or indirectly used
>> > infringes the legal rights of any third party.
>>
>>Bruce: this is a good example of how the RAA is
>>currently out of scope. To begin with, it is a
>>completely useless element of the RAA. This
>>statement does not stop anyone from doing
>>anything, and it does not require ICANN to
>>determine whether a registrant is infringing
>>someone's rights. And how is anyone supposed to
>>know whether the way they use a domain
>>infringes the legal rights of a third party -
>>anywhere in the world, under any
>>jurisdiction? They cannot know this until
>>and unless someone asserts those rights
>>against them in a legal system which has
>>jurisdiction and can make a legal
>>determination. Or do we want ICANN to be making
>>this determination? Most would agree that we do
>>not. So what is the purpose, other than to
>>invite ICANN to impose controls or regulations
>>on virtually anything that happens on the internet?
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>=================================================================
>>Reminder: Any email that requests your login
>>credentials or that asks you to click on a link
>>could be a phishing attack. If you have any
>>questions regarding the authenticity of this
>>email or its sender, please contact the IT
>>Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at
>><mailto:ITServices at timewarner.com>ITServices at timewarner.com
>>
>>
>>=================================================================
>>
>>=================================================================
>>This message is the property of Time Warner
>>Inc. and is intended only for the use of the
>>addressee(s) and may be legally privileged
>>and/or confidential. If the reader of this message
>>is not the intended recipient, or the employee
>>or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
>>recipient, he or she is hereby notified that
>>any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding,
>>or any method of copying of this information,
>>and/or the taking of any action in reliance on
>>the information herein is strictly prohibited
>>except by the intended recipient or those to whom
>>he or she intentionally distributes this
>>message. If you have received this communication in
>>error, please immediately notify the sender,
>>and delete the original message and any copies
>>from your computer or storage system. Thank you.
>>=================================================================
>>_______________________________________________
>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>_______________________________________________
>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>*******************************
>>David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology
>>Institute/New America Foundation
>>blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_people_david-2Dpost&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=sFIVEVRa4d2-50iBD-equxjw7XvbBhYdWLFew_7kOTA&e=>http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
>>book (Jefferson's
>>Moose)
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=ywg8uVPfTYGqvglA4unTV31GGxchC7v0aAGWrgZkGwI&e=>http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
>>
>>music
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpostmusic-25A0&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=-Riw1v0au2L-2i3gFKAtEkYl56nN9CXxfpAuLQLoMGo&e=>http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
>>publications
>>etc.
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-2520_&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=C0EhJhpDbLpEFEZrabNoThQ_PqYnGoH9H9Ov6mccnu8&e=>http://www.davidpost.com
>>
>>*******************************
>>
>>=================================================================
>>Reminder: Any email that requests your login
>>credentials or that asks you to click on a link
>>could be a phishing attack. If you have any
>>questions regarding the authenticity of this
>>email or its sender, please contact the IT
>>Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at
>><mailto:ITServices at timewarner.com>ITServices at timewarner.com
>>
>>
>>=================================================================
>>
>>=================================================================This
>>message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and
>>is intended only for the use of theaddressee(s)
>>and may be legally privileged and/or
>>confidential. If the reader of this messageis
>>not the intended recipient, or the employee or
>>agent responsible to deliver it to the
>>intendedrecipient, he or she is hereby notified
>>that any dissemination, distribution, printing,
>>forwarding,or any method of copying of this
>>information, and/or the taking of any action in
>>reliance onthe information herein is strictly
>>prohibited except by the intended recipient or
>>those to whomhe or she intentionally
>>distributes this message. If you have received
>>this communication inerror, please immediately
>>notify the sender, and delete the original
>>message and any copiesfrom your computer or
>>storage system. Thank
>>you.=================================================================
>>
>>*******************************
>>David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology
>>Institute/New America Foundation
>>blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_people_david-2Dpost&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=sFIVEVRa4d2-50iBD-equxjw7XvbBhYdWLFew_7kOTA&e=>http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
>>book (Jefferson's
>>Moose)
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=ywg8uVPfTYGqvglA4unTV31GGxchC7v0aAGWrgZkGwI&e=>http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
>>
>>music
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpostmusic-25A0&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=-Riw1v0au2L-2i3gFKAtEkYl56nN9CXxfpAuLQLoMGo&e=>http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
>>publications
>>etc.
>><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B-26nbsp-3B_&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=q0We23gB15IOvlVyCxS70PlyFWr7jiJPtk5hUAwJ4-o&s=lr-1bErJrSUdw4bKPYQHlyQJnyZmCN5O3BLA8oN7OPY&e=>http://www.davidpost.com
>>
>>*******************************
>>
>>=================================================================
>>Reminder: Any email that requests your login
>>credentials or that asks you to click on a link
>>could be a phishing attack. If you have any
>>questions regarding the authenticity of this
>>email or its sender, please contact the IT
>>Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at
>><mailto:ITServices at timewarner.com>ITServices at timewarner.com
>>
>>
>>=================================================================
>>
>>=================================================================
>>Reminder: Any email that requests your login
>>credentials or that asks you to click on a link
>>could be a phishing attack. If you have any
>>questions regarding the authenticity of this
>>email or its sender, please contact the IT
>>Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at
>><mailto:ITServices at timewarner.com>ITServices at timewarner.com
>>
>>
>>=================================================================
>
>*******************************
>David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
>blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
>book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
>music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
>publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com
>*******************************
*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151123/6e6f1657/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list