[CPWG] Fwd: [IP] ICANN Can Stand Against Censorship (And Avoid Another .ORG Debacle) by Keeping Content Regulation and Other Dangerous Policies Out of Its Registry Contracts | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Wed Nov 25 22:13:29 UTC 2020

Pig in lipstick is still a porker.

..still not worth a bucket of warm spit!  And I remain unanimous  on that.

Carlton

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 12:20 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
wrote:

> FYI - on the PICs and RVCs.
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [IP] ICANN Can Stand Against Censorship (And Avoid Another .ORG
> Debacle) by Keeping Content Regulation and Other Dangerous Policies Out of
> Its Registry Contracts | Electronic Frontier Foundation
> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 09:11:17 +0900
> From: Dave Farber <farber at gmail.com> <farber at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: ip <ip at ip.topicbox.com> <ip at ip.topicbox.com>
> To: Ip Ip <ip at v2.listbox.com> <ip at v2.listbox.com>
>
> *I am a member of the Board of Trustees of EFF   djf*
>
>
>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/icann-can-stand-against-censorship-and-avoid-another-org-debacle-keeping-content
>
> ICANN Can Stand Against Censorship (And Avoid Another .ORG Debacle) by
> Keeping Content Regulation and Other Dangerous Policies Out of Its Registry
> Contracts
> Mitch Stoltz <http:///about/staff/mitch-stoltz>
> November 22, 2020
>
> The Internet’s domain name system is not the place to police speech.
> ICANN, the organization that regulates that system, is legally bound *not*
> to act as the Internet’s speech police, but its legal commitments are
> riddled with exceptions, and aspiring censors have already used those
> exceptions in harmful ways. This was one factor that made the failed
> takeover
> <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/victory-icann-rejects-org-sale-private-equity-firm-ethos-capital>
> of the .ORG registry such a dangerous situation. But now, ICANN has an
> opportunity to curb this abuse and recommit to its narrow mission of
> keeping the DNS running, by placing firm limits on so-called “voluntary
> public interest commitments” (PICs, recently renamed Registry Voluntary
> Commitments, or RVCs).
>
> For many years, ICANN and the domain name registries it oversees have
> given mixed messages about their commitments to free speech and to staying
> within their mission. ICANN’s bylaws
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article1>declare
> that “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on)
> services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that
> such services carry or provide.” ICANN’s mission, according to its bylaws,
> “is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique
> identifier systems.” And ICANN, by its own commitment, “shall not act
> outside its Mission.”
>
> But…there’s always a but. The bylaws go on to say that ICANN’s agreements
> with registries (the managing entities of each top-level domain like .com,
> .org, and .horse) and registrars (the companies you pay to register a
> domain name for your website) automatically fall within ICANN’s legal
> authority, and are immune from challenge, if they were in place in 2016, or
> if they “do not vary materially” from the 2016 versions.
>
> Therein lies the mischief. Since 2013, registries have been allowed to
> make any commitments they like and write them into their contracts with
> ICANN. Once they’re written into the contract, they become enforceable by
> ICANN. These “voluntary public interest commitments”  have included many
> promises made to powerful business interests that work against the rights
> of domain name users. For example, one registry operator puts the interests
> of major brands over those of its actual customers by allowing trademark
> holders to stop anyone else from registering domains that contain common
> words they claim as brands.
>
> Further, at least one registry has granted itself “sole discretion and at
> any time and without limitation, to deny, suspend, cancel, or transfer any
> registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on registry lock,
> hold, or similar status” for vague and undefined reasons, without notice to
> the registrant and without any opportunity to respond.  This rule applies
> across potentially millions of domain names. How can anyone feel secure
> that the domain name they use for their website or app won’t suddenly be
> shut down? With such arbitrary policies in place, why would anyone trust
> the domain name system with their valued speech, expression, education,
> research, and commerce?
>
> Voluntary PICs even played a role in the failed takeover of the .ORG
> registry earlier this year by the private equity firm Ethos Capital, which
> is run by former ICANN insiders. When EFF and thousands of other
> organizations sounded the alarm over private investors’ bid for control
> over the speech of nonprofit organizations, Ethos Capital proposed to write
> PICs that, according to them, would prevent censorship. Of course, because
> the clauses Ethos proposed to add to its contract were written by the firm
> alone, without any meaningful community input, they had more holes than
> Swiss cheese. If the sale had succeeded, ICANN would have been bound to
> enforce Ethos’s weak and self-serving version of anti-censorship.
> *A Fresh Look by the ICANN Board?*
>
> The issue of PICs is now up for review by an ICANN working group known as
> “Subsequent Procedures.” Last month, the ICANN Board wrote an open letter
> to that group expressing concern about PICs that might entangle ICANN in
> issues that fall “outside of ICANN’s technical mission.” It bears repeating
> that the one thing explicitly called out in ICANN’s bylaws as being outside
> of ICANN’s mission is to “regulate” Internet services “or the content that
> such services carry or provide.” The Board asked the working group
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-langdon-orr-neuman-30sep20-en.pdf>
> [pdf] for “guidance on how to utilize PICs and RVCs without the need for
> ICANN to assess and pass judgment on content.”
> *A Solution: No Contractual Terms About Content Regulation*
>
> EFF supports this request, and so do many other organizations and
> stakeholders who don’t want to see ICANN become another content moderation
> battleground. There’s a simple, three-part solution that the Subsequent
> Procedures working group can propose:
>
>    - PICs/RVCs can only address issues with domain names themselves—not
>    the contents of websites or apps that use domain names;
>    - PICs/RVCs should not give registries unbounded discretion to suspend
>    domain names;
>    - and PICs/RVCs should not be used to create new domain name policies
>    that didn’t come through ICANN processes.
>
> In short, while registries can run their businesses as they see fit,
> ICANN’s contracts and enforcement systems should have no role in content
> regulation, or any other rules and policies beyond the ones the ICANN
> Community has made together.
>
> A guardrail on the PIC/RVC process will keep ICANN true to its promise not
> to regulate Internet services and content.  It will help avoid another
> situation like the failed .ORG takeover, by sending a message that
> censorship-for-profit is against ICANN’s principles. It will also help
> registry operators to resist calls for censorship by governments (for
> example, calls to suppress truthful information about the importation of
> prescription medicines). This will preserve Internet users’ trust in the
> domain name system.
>
> *ip <https://ip.topicbox.com/latest>* / ip / see discussions
> <https://ip.topicbox.com/groups/ip> + participants
> <https://ip.topicbox.com/groups/ip/members> + delivery options
> <https://ip.topicbox.com/groups/ip/subscription> Permalink
> <https://ip.topicbox.com/groups/ip/T02cb5565bc232bcb-M93388c84b74a20d966b43347>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20201125/81edf5cf/attachment.html>