Certainly looks interesting to me. I think we should weigh in, and this
may be a good way.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2017-02-19 09:13, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> Might this letter being drafted by the Internet Commerce Association
> be something that the NCSG would like to sign on in support of?
>
> Ayden Férdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Why is ISOC's PIR promoting a private
>> global copyright censorship court for domains?
>> Local Time: 17 February 2017 11:25 AM
>> UTC Time: 17 February 2017 11:25
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> To: Graham Cobb <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Hello to members of ISOC's Internet Policy discussion group.
>>
>> I am Counsel to the Internet Commerce Association (ICA). Last week I
>> posted a blog concerning the HDI proposal at
>> http://www.internetcommerce.org/dna-unveils-hdi-with-copyright-udrp/
>> . ICA subsequently posted a statement of concern regarding the
>> Copyright ADRP which can be found at
>> http://www.internetcommerce.org/ica-deeply-concerned-with-proposal-to-enable-domain-transfers-based-upon-copyright-claims/
>> .
>>
>> This past week I have been attending the Intersessional meeting of
>> ICANN's Non-Contracted Party House (NCPH) in Reykjavik, Iceland in my
>> capacity as one of the GNSO Councilors representing the Business
>> Constituency (BC - and noting that the BC has not taken any position
>> on any component of HDI and that this communication is being
>> undertaken in my ICA role and not on behalf of the BC). During the
>> meeting I engaged in conversations with many other members of the
>> NCPH who share substantial concerns regarding the Copyright ADRP and
>> its imminent implementation by PIR.
>>
>> Those concerned NCPH delegates have asked me to draft a letter that
>> can be signed by individuals and organizations requesting that PIR
>> and ISOC undertake an open and transparent dialogue with the broad
>> Internet community before making any final decision on whether and in
>> what form to implement the Copyright ADRP. We share the common belief
>> that PIR, as the registry operator affiliated with ISOC, has a
>> particular responsibility to engage in such a dialogue before
>> granting ISOC's implicit blessing to an unprecedented dispute
>> resolution procedure concerning copyright disputes. That is
>> particularly true given that the DNA developed the HDI components
>> without undertaking the broad outreach and discussion beyond its
>> membership that it had initially indicated would be forthcoming.
>>
>> As I am uncertain of the propriety of circulating such a draft
>> communication on this list, I am requesting that individuals and
>> organizations that may have an interest in joining such a
>> communication contact me direct at [log in to unmask] . When the letter
>> is final I will share it on this mailing list, and in the interim I
>> will likely have more to say on this subject in my ICA Counsel capacity.
>>
>> Thank you for your attention.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>>
>> Virtualaw LLC
>>
>> 1155 F Street, NW
>>
>> Suite 1050
>>
>> Washington, DC 20004
>>
>> 202-559-8597/Direct
>>
>> 202-559-8750/Fax
>>
>> 202-255-6172/cell
>>
>>
>>
>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: InternetPolicy [[log in to unmask]] on
>> behalf of Graham Cobb [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 1:56 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Why is ISOC's PIR promoting a private
>> global copyright censorship court for domains?
>>
>> On 16/02/17 18:17, Livingood, Jason wrote:
>> > On 2/16/17, 12:34 PM, "InternetPolicy on behalf of Brandt Dainow"
>> <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >> I am firmly convinced this is an example of "mission creep" - the
>> job of domain name management is to manage allocation of, and
>> disputes over,
>> >> ownership of domain names. It is not the job of domain name
>> management to have any say in what those domain names are used for.
>> >
>> > The alternative appears to be country-by-country mandated domain
>> name blocking
>> > (happening increasingly in Europe), which many MSH organizations have
>> in the
>> > past said risks balkanizing the Internet.
>>
>> I don't accept that that is the only alternative: in my view it is just
>> as unreasonable.
>>
>> However, even if that is the alternative, it is better for many reasons:
>> the effects are limited to the country concerned; the process is
>> governed by the laws of the people affected; blocking is often
>> ineffective; the cost of silencing a domain owner worldwide are much
>> higher.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13918 - Release Date:
>> 02/09/17
>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>> _______________________________________________
>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>
|
