Thanks Bill and please add me on your list. I have written about COICA and the bill is highly problematic. My understanding was that the bill might have been suspended for the time, but next time around it will be rushed through. IP owners really want this and they will do whatever they can to proceed with it. So, let’s all put our heads together and show why this bill is again highly problematic.
KK
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Law 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
From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brenden Kuerbis
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 2:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: COICA
Thanks Bill, I'd like to help on this. And I agree working with ALAC, and particularly Marc Rotenburg, would be a good idea.
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:11 AM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi
Thanks Kathy and Rafik for the updates. Good to know the bill won't be taken up until after the midterm elections, but troubling that the WH is nevertheless pushing forward with the notion of using the DNS to censor at the behest of intellectual property interests. At least ICANN had the good sense not to get involved in the latter discussion,
http://domainincite.com/icann-will-not-attend-white-house-drugs-meeting/
When the Senate swings back to consider COICA, I would still favor us writing a letter, perhaps in conjunction with ALAC. I'd be happy to work on a draft, perhaps after Cartagena and before the holiday season. If anyone would be interested in collaborating on this just send me a note for future reference.
Best,
Bill
On Oct 2, 2010, at 1:47 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
hi Bill,
for contracted parties, they have pressure from US gov and even had meeting at White house this week I think
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100929/20293711230/even-without-coica-white-house-asking-registrars-to-voluntarily-censor-infringing-sites.shtml
Regards
Rafik
2010/9/30 William Drake <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Hi
Maybe this is something on which NCSG, ALAC, and others in ICANNland should weigh in on, e.g. with a letter to Leahy? It would certainly seem to fall within our bailiwick...
Have yet to hear anything from the contracted parties, will be interesting to see how they play it…
Bill
Begin forwarded message:
From: William Drake <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: September 30, 2010 9:54:54 AM GMT+02:00
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: COICA
Hi
COICA is an intergalactically horrible idea that seems designed to greatly escalate concerns about unilateralism vis. CIR. As CDT's letter http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/Leahy_bill_memo.pdf notes,
"S. 3804 significantly aggravates the situation by suggesting to the world that the U.S. does intend to use the historic nature of the DNS (with American companies administering “.com” and other leading top-level domains) to impose American law on the global Internet. Under the bill, the U.S. asserts that it can take down websites created and operated anywhere in the world, simply based on the fact that the websites use the most popular global top-level domain (.com). This type of assertion of global control is the kind of U.S. exercise of power about which other countries of the world have worried – and about which U.S. foreign policy has sought to reassure the world. Thus S. 3804 directly harms the United Statesʼ Internet governance agenda pursued through diplomatic channels over the past ten years."
A bit astonishing and sad that the bill was introduced by Patrick Leahy, who for many years has been a champion of online civil liberties and partner of US public interest groups on digital matters. But the IPR lobby is a powerful beast that apparently must be placated…Still, I'd like to think he's going through the motions here and knows this should fail.
Bill
On Sep 30, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html<http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake<http://www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake>
***********************************************************
|
