Hi,

I think that as the NCSG, a SG in the GNSO, we need to focus on the issues brought up that are common to the g-council and c-council.  I do not think we should get into making comments on the ccTLDs which are none of our concern.  If we want to focus on bad actors we should focus on bad actors in the gTLD space. I am sure we can find some.

As non commercial actors and/or academics, we can work through the At-Large on any of our concerns with ccTLD behaviors as it is within their purview for advice.

avri


On 10 Nov 2011, at 05:18, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:

> We definitely need to engage more with the ccNSO - from what I have observed the ccNSO is mainly exposed to discussions with a limited number of stakeholders and mainly law enforcement agencies. So, they are only listening to one side of the story and ultimately they tend to forget/don't care/don't consider important the implications their policies have on non-commercial users, fair use and free speech. So, I definitely support a more robust interaction between the two councils and also I suggest we, as NCSG, start approaching the ccNSO for more in depth discussions.
> 
> KK
> 
> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
> 
> Senior Lecturer,
> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
> Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
> University of Strathclyde,
> The Law School,
> Graham Hills building, 
> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA 
> UK
> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
> Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
> Website: www.komaitis.org
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Πέμπτη, 10 Νοεμβρίου 2011 1:52 πμ
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Seeking your comments: GNSO and ccNSO topics
> 
> Thanks, Andrew.  However, this might a good reason to open a dialogue with ccNSO on this issue and to bring to bear some of these issues and concerns of registrants when these take-downs happen outside of due process.  So while we (NCSG) might be coming from a different perspective than ccNSO, we could both benefit from hearing the issues and concerns from the other and trying to find some common ground where possible.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Nov 9, 2011, at 4:17 PM, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> As some of you may be aware, there are moves to strengthen the 
>>> cooperation = between the ccNSO and GNSO. Ideas are being canvassed 
>>> for suggestions on po= ssible areas for interaction. A question: 
>>> would the issue of domain name ta= kedown might be a good one to 
>>> suggest for joint ccNSO GNSO work? Especially= given the recent 
>>> Verisign episode, it is not just a ccTLD issue. Lots of d= ifferences 
>>> between the GNSO and ccNSO but takedowns have some significant i= 
>>> ssues in terms of the rights of registrants that would echo across both and= likely to be of increasing focus =85..
>>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> With Nominet dealing with this in the UK as well, it's clear that 
>> there is common ground between ccNSO and GNSO here. However, I am 
>> concerned that cc delegates may be more easily influenced by 
>> censorship-happy governments and that this might leave us with less 
>> protection for freedom of speech in the generic name space than we might otherwise have.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Professor Andrew A Adams                      [log in to unmask]
>> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and Deputy 
>> Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
>> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]