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