NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
kashif akram <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:48:08 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
Ahsjku

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from du



-----Original Message-----

From:         Kerry Brown <[log in to unmask]>

Sender:       NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>

Date:         Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:23:08 

To: <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:     Kerry Brown <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Seeking your comments: GNSO and ccNSO topics



I have to disagree somewhat with this. You are painting all ccTLD's with the same brush. As a director of CIRA who manage the .ca ccTLD I can say that CIRA listens to all stakeholders and takes their views into account when creating policy. I know many other ccTLDs do as well. Of course many don't as they are either run more like a commercial  gTLD or closely controlled by the state. I think overall you'll find the ccTLDs are very diverse with many different governance models. It is very hard to make generalizations because of this.



Personally I would like to see increased interaction between all the ICANN councils, constituencies, and stakeholders. That I think most of us agree on.



Kerry Brown



> -----Original Message-----

> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf

> Of Konstantinos Komaitis

> Sent: November-10-11 2:19 AM

> To: [log in to unmask]

> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Seeking your comments: GNSO and ccNSO

> topics

> 

> 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]


ATOM RSS1 RSS2