[registration-issues-wg] Registrars as Censors
Michele Neylon - Blacknight
michele at blacknight.com
Sun Nov 5 17:32:35 UTC 2017
Freedom of speech is *not* “inalienable” and it’s definitely not an absolute right.
Personally I think it’s interesting that different groups want to discuss this, but unless they’re going to pay our legal fees I don’t see how any 3rd party can force a registrar (or anyone else) to not take action when they’re being fined or worse.
Mr Michele Neylon
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow, R93 X265
,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: <registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
Date: Sunday 5 November 2017 at 17:17
To: "registration-issues-wg at icann.org" <registration-issues-wg at icann.org>, Charla Shambley via CCT-Review <cct-review at icann.org>
Subject: [registration-issues-wg] Registrars as Censors
Um, well, they can summarily act under [a] general provision[s] of the Terms of Service disapproving of things like incitement, antisocial behaviours and such.
The NCUC's position tends to a blanket restraint on any action by the registrar; the ToS may not be utilised for such actions, especially if it results - or tends to result - in decisions pertaining [web] content.
The EFF's position is a little more nuanced:
it is worried about lack of due process and accountability in the first instance and the incursion of certain inalienable rights, like freedom of speech. So they promote a process that they feel would make the action accountable
Carlton A Samuels
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the registration-issues-wg