Dear Kathy, I suggest that a good and brief description of the Agreement is included in the written submission of the question, so we don’t get an answer like: we are looking into it, but we are not part of the agreement……… Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 20 Oct 2016, at 19:26, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > 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 > > On 10/19/2016 12:12 PM, William Drake wrote: >> 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…. >> >> Bill >> >>> On 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