[At-Large] Guidance for Domain Name Orders

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Wed Mar 14 02:09:02 UTC 2012

On seeing Lutz's alarm, I took the time to read the entire paper.   And I
too am troubled by what I see and the implications arising from it.

The paper acknowledges extra-judicial and extra-regulatory domain
takedowns; "*who is making the legal or regulatory action or issuing a
request*".  It even allows that takedowns may be effected against domains
not domiciled in the United States where the alleged misdeed is a perfectly
legal activity.  [*See Page 12, Paragraph 2 under 'Additional

We acknowledge the checklist, as presented is purposefully declared as
to submit with a legal or regulatory action*".

We are unanimous. Absent appropriate legal and/or regulatory due process,
we reject domain takedown actions as inimical to the global public interest.

Star chamber actions should never be accommodated by any part of ICANN. And
in this context - and in all likelihood, unintended - this paper is a 'how
to' manual for such activities.

ICANN should never be seen to accommodate these behaviours. Because it
undermines the positive message it is seeking to project about its

- Carlton Samuels

Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz at iks-jena.de> wrote:

> Hi Dave,
> I'm shocked about you paper: http://tinyurl.com/icann-supports-censorship
> What the hell is the reason behind drafting such a collection of (at least)
> misleading forms?
> Your wording in the preface is completely irrelevant: It will be ignored.
> The only thing pushed into the brains of law enforcement and politics is
> the
> simple message: "ICANN is willing to support all your needs. Fill those
> forms. No further questions asked."
> For technical people the paper might be not directly wrong, but it is a
> political nightmare. By fulfilling your technically motivated desire to
> automate repeating tasks, you did implement the wrong solution.
> ICANN has the obligation to protect the Internet by maintaining stable and
> secure provisioning of basic ressources. This is the main task ICANN has to
> fulfill due by various contracts, especially the §3 of the Articles of
> Incorporation as well as §3(b) of the Affirmation of Commitments.
> Your paper draws the wrong solution, because it ignores this basic
> principle
> and opens the road to rank indiviual interests higher than the public
> interest in a single common Internet.
> Given the political implications, your paper is a direct violation of §5(b)
> and §5(c) of the Articles of Incorporation as well as §4 of the Affirmation
> of Commitments.
> Please let me quote from the legal document mentioned last:
>  To ensure that its decisions are in the public interest, and not just the
>  interests of a particular set of stakeholders, ICANN commits to perform
>  and publish analyses of the positive and negative effects of its decisions
>  on the public, including any financial impact on the public, and the
>  positive or negative impact (if any) on the systemic security, stability
>  and resiliency of the DNS.
> Your paper causes a strong impact to the creditability of ICANN.
> Sadly,
>  Lutz
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

More information about the At-Large mailing list