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

[Seth Johnson <[e-mail]>]

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).


Seth

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Seth Johnson <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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