[CCWG-ACCT] [WP2] WP2 Issues with third draft

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi,

If courts has been treating it as content, then it may be good to fix that
by providing clarification on what the domain is.

I don't think because some jurisdiction see it as content should imply that
it is correct and that should not be a thing to worry about unless ICANN in
her existing contracts/agreement has recognised domain as content. If that
is the case then the wording of the contracts has to be looked into as to
whether they are subject to policies and then those details/hacks can be
proposed through the appropriate PDP.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 24 Nov 2015 06:27, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

>
>
> MM: I don’t agree that the domain names are not content. Courts have ruled
> in multiple jurisdictions that domain names (e.g., Taubmannsucks.com)
> constitute a protected form of expression. Any statement or actions to the
> contrary by ICANN would in fact violate the legal rights of third parties.
>
>
>
> However, I do not mind crafting the bylaws in a way that specifies that
> domain names are not the kind of content regulation proscribed by this
> language. Because of conflicts over rights to names and ICANN’s position as
> policy maker governing how to resolve them, ICANN’s rules do need to take
> into account the semantic aspects of domain names. Thus, a footnote to the
> effect that “the prohibition on content regulation of internet services
> does not prevent ICANN policies from taking into account the semantic
> meaning of domain names” would be acceptable to me.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23/11/2015 23:14, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> > MISSION, CORE VALUES
> >
> > Page 33: In the infamous "ICANN shall have no powers" section (those
> > words since removed), I have been assured that there will be
> > instructions to the lawyers so that the final crafted Bylaw will make it
> > clear that for the purposes of this section, the identifiers themselves
> > will be deemed not to be content. A footnote in the Annex would give me
> > some comfort.
>
> As I have said before, I have no problem with doing this.
>
> In fact, please can we get on and do it, so we don't have to keep
> hearing this request repeated!
>
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>
>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>        Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
>
>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP2 mailing list
> WP2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp2
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151124/0a2d83ed/attachment.html>