Hi Tapani,
I would like to introduce another important and timely question
for our NCSG/Board meeting. It is one that comes from Mitch Stoltz
and myself. Mitch is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic
Frontier Foundation. He works on cases where free speech and
innovation collide with copyright and trademark law. For the
first time, he will be joining us at an ICANN meeting in India!
Currently, MItch is working on concerns about "shadow
regulation." Shadow regulation is the "secretive web of backroom
agreements between companies that seek to control our behavior
online." (See Fair Processes, Better Outcomes, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/09/fair-processes-better-outcomes)
We have just such a shadow regulation here in our gTLD Community.
Earlier this year, Donuts signed a deal with the MPAA to take down
not just content, but entire domain names, of copyright
owners accused by the MPAA of violating their copyrights.
Although the concept, MPAA as a "trusted notifier" was taken from
the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it was taken without any
of its fairness, balance, protections and appeals. Basically, it's
another "accuse you lose" scenario (for anyone who remembers the
first version of Uniform Rapid Suspension, before we fought for
huge changes). And Donuts is marketing this agreement as a "Best
Practice." :-(
Mitch can be with us for the NCSG-Board meeting and we propose the
following question set:
==> Does the Board continue to agree with Fadi Chehade's
position of Summer 2015 that ICANN does not police content,
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police
(published by Alan Grogan, ICANN's Chief Contract Compliance
Officer)? Does the Board share our
concerns that arrangements like the MPAA-Donuts agreement are
deeply inappropriate for the Domain Name System?
Likely response:
I think we may find relief from the Board in our asking this
question. As you may have seen, the IPC leadership is banging on
the Board to enforce copyright laws through ICANN compliance (See
ICANN Correspondence). Steve Crocker has been writing back
forcefully to say this is not within ICANN's scope and purview.
I think our questions will a) support the effort of the ICANN
Board to push back on the IPC on its push, b) and share the
horrors of the Donuts-MPAA private agreement with those members of
the Board who have not yet heard about it.
Best,
Kathy
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">Hi You might consider combining 1 and 3 somehow, otherwise 2 of our 3 topics are focused on nailing the same person, who they’re doubling down on. Could be awkward and set teeth on edge. Another option would be to ask about Goran’s “new narrative” that he’ll have rolled out by, ask about costs/benefits of a tripartite community/board/organization formulation…. BillOn Oct 19, 2016, at 17:29, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 1. The new "complaint" system, which puts ICANN's lawyer (whose job is to protect the corporation from complainers whether they are right or wrong) in charge of managing complaints. Also affects the independence of the Ombudsman in unclear ways 2. The "small group" that is trying to develop policy for IGO names outside of ICANN's bottom up and representative policy processes. 3. Why there were no repercussions for the abuses of TLD evaluation procedures in the Dot Registry case. Indeed, the person responsible seems to have been promoted.-----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tapani Tarvainen Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 8:30 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Topics for meeting with the board in Hyderabad? Dear all, As usual the board wants in advance topics or questions for our meeting with them in Hyderabad. Suggestions? -- Tapani Tarvainen