Hi Mitch, Farzaneh, all,

Thanks for bringing this up and informing us on the history of the
discussion. I was thinking about whether we could perhaps stimulate PIR
to have a pro-active understanding of the impact of their work,
according to NCSG values? This could perhaps be modeled after similar
work has already been done by SIDN and Blacknight, which I think is very
close to NCSGs mission and values. Perhaps PIR could engage in such a
process (with us) as well?

Best,

Niels

On 08/31/2018 08:43 AM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> Hi Mitch,
> 
> Thanks a lot. NCUC also wrote a letter to the chair of PIR Board about
> this and I brought it up during an advisory council meeting in February
> 2017. Letter is attached.
> 
> I also brought it up in the Advisory Council face to face meeting, in
> October 2017 as well. We held a workshop at IGF in 2017(December) about
> ICANN and content regulation, invited Brian Cute the then CEO to tell us
> why periodically PIR gets about providing a third party platform for
> content regulation. Here is a brief report done by Ayden that sums it up
> well. 
> Link to the
> meeting: http://igf.wgig.org/multilingual/fr/content/igf-2017-day-3-room-xii-ws67-content-regulation-and-private-ordering-at-internet-governance
> 
>     Brian Cute said that registry operators should not be arbitrators of
>     content on the Internet. However, he said that they do have takedown
>     policies, primarily utilised to protect the DNS from botnets,
>     malware, and phishing. The only form of content regulation the
>     Public Interest Registry engages in is to remove child abuse imagery
>     and hate speech, which is protected speech unless there is a
>     specific and clear call to violence as that is illegal in the U.S..
>     He stated that there is a clear process for takedowns and said that
>     registry operators should rely on due process and the rule of law
>     when deciding whether or not to take content down. He is concerned
>     about increasing government pressure to take down content, and
>     industry models that don’t reflect the requisite level of due
>     process for takedowns. PIR believes that an important question is
>     how services providers engage with stakeholders when considering
>     adopting new policies. PIR considered an approach to systemic
>     copyright violations but has stepped back from this and is
>     reflecting about the stakeholder engagement process issue. 
> 
> 
> For a couple of months, they were asking us (PIR Advisory council) about
> how to run a consultative process to come up with dispute resolution
> platform, until they stopped. 
> 
> But from time to time there are some "discussions" here and there. At
> NCSG we will continue organizing workshops about why ICANN should not be
> a content regulator. We also have to find ways to stop Domain Name
> Association to keep appearing on ICANN meeting schedules and have closed
> meetings! We will also continue telling PIR to be as neutral as possible
> and not do content regulation nor come up with the idea of third party
> content moderation provider.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Farzaneh
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:13 PM Mitch Stoltz <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> 
>     Dear Farzaneh,
>         In early 2017 we learned that PIR was, on its own initiative and
>     with no public input, creating a UDRP-like arbitration system to
>     rule on copyright claims against the contents of a website,
>     presumably leading to domain name suspension or transfer. When EFF
>     began asking questions about this, PIR announced that it was no
>     longer pursuing it.
> 
>     See
>     https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/shadow-regulation-withers-sunlight
>     https://pir.org/5776-2/
> 
>     As this is no longer an active initiative, I do not recommend that
>     you bring it up at the PIR Advisory Council. But if PIR should again
>     raise proposals to regulate the content of websites and Internet
>     services as a domain registry in ways not required by its ICANN
>     contract (whether for copyright enforcement, pharmacy registration
>     enforcement, or any other goal) I encourage you to speak out about it.
>         Best,
>           Mitch
> 
>     Mitch Stoltz
>     Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142
>     https://www.eff.org/donate | https://act.eff.org/ 
> 
>     On 8/30/18 12:37 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>     Dear NCSG,
>>
>>     I am still the NCSG representative on Public Interest Registry
>>     Advisory Council and going to attend their meeting in October. The
>>     agenda of the meeting is set usually by PIR but I am hoping we can
>>     provide some feedback. 
>>
>>     What items would you like to discuss? 
>>
>>     Please let me know by  4th of September, I would like to send the
>>     suggestions off soon so that they have enough time to think about
>>     including or not including them.
>>
>>
>>
>>     Best regards
>>     Farzaneh
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate
Datactive Research Group
University of Amsterdam

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3