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 <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]> > 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]> > *Date: *September 30, 2010 9:54:54 AM GMT+02:00 > *To: *[log in to unmask], "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > [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] > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > [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] > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake > *********************************************************** > > > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > [log in to unmask] > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake > *********************************************************** > > >