Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?

Seth Johnson <> Mon, 19 October 2015 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE5F51A905D for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u2PUO3xCJqcf for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C62031A8A82 for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qkcy65 with SMTP id y65so23141287qkc.0 for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=MSvMY7mmYwCNNUmYFFSwHiaiMj81zp3IPu16vJJlQss=; b=h11/du+gRSpYw9DxqR8oLtW+XSrkmwXpYsxtHQ1PHFF+FPt0/6mrb5TzEFGO3ZTDTf OjyZv4s7oY89weZLPCO1/Mgtg7t6HMK8W0OB5ENRS/ZZowmpLcbymYyuPnOA2pMwt8xj VOPe02nLjTJZtMpfFvr4FRjQ+7rlvuta1xoyi6vq7q6lS3cs5hmDgTT4En/R3XnoyFaI f7tAK128kz9AxbB1XFE0L/nzoDuBEAyJ3s68GMKTiPGTLmSWlEbKDvmD58s6dIeta1PD pSnMa33bZW6PEANGdEdosfYaYMZ/8tQc89FHzCfYHUVXbXV/RynRGxcf33TXJoq/g6nB 0ffg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id p37mr38264437qkp.73.1445285184809; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <20151019183240.61852.qmail@ary.lan> <>
From: Seth Johnson <>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:05:45 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: John Levine <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:06:51 -0000

What this means is the courts will throw out duly enacted acts of the
government that meddle with your fundamental free speech right, and
only uphold them if they serve a very compelling state interest and if
they are narrowly tailored to serve that purpose alone and not invade
the general free speech right.  That is, domestically.  This is why
the US doesn't meddle in communications-related areas except very
circumspectively.  They will be trumped if they do.  That includes not
doing things like (whatever the particular details are in that tweet
from Jeremy Malcolm I just posted) meddling in the DNS standards.  The
US did that in the TPP *because the intergovernmental arena is not
limited by fundamental rights that way.*  The US was relying on the
same thing in the Safe Harbor Agreement.  Removing the US from its
hosting role leaves you intergovernmental just by default (and not
just "privatized" within ICANN as the tech community generally seems
to think -- for good reason, because it's always worked that way).


On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Seth Johnson <>; wrote:
> Bill of Rights.  Fundamental rights in constitutional acts in general.
> They are limits on government, set by the people as prior to the
> regular acts of the government.  Other rights do not have that status.
> Courts apply the "strict scrutiny" standard of review for these rights
> precisely because they have this priority.
> Seth
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:32 PM, John Levine <>; wrote:
>>>The "more technical" areas have had the ability to operate in that way
>>>because they are in a stewardship context where governmental inroads
>>>have been proscribed.
>> You keep saying this.  Could you provide a pointer to the relevant
>> section of the law, please?
>> R's,
>> John