Colleagues,
PIR has just issued a statement that may be of interest to those engaged in this discussion.
Over the past year, Public Interest Registry has been developing a highly focused policy that addresses systemic, large scale copyright infringement – the "Systemic Copyright Infringement Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy" or SCDRP.
Given certain concerns that have been recently raised in the public domain, Public Interest Registry is pausing its SCDRP development process to reflect on those concerns and consider forward steps. We will hold any further development of the SCDRP until further notice.
Best,Sally
On Feb 19, 2017, at 9:13 PM, Phil Corwin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thank you for this response, Sally.
Before all the potential questions can be asked, which is the prerequisite for your provision of responsive answers, the largest question is where is the statement of what the Copyright ADRP will be -- in at least as much detail as that for the UDRP (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en ) on which it is purportedly modeled (and noting that copyright law is substantially more complex than trademark, which likely introduces additional considerations)?
Until we see at least the same level of detail for both the Policy itself and the Rules under which NAF would provide administration it is not even possible to formulate a full list of questions that should be addressed in advance of an implementation decision. So I hope you will focus on providing that basic level of detail as a priority matter.
I look forward to working on this issue in a constructive manner.
Best regards,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message-----
From: InternetPolicy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sally Wentworth
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 5:43 PM
To: Ian Peter; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Why is ISOC's PIR promoting a private global copyright censorship court for domains?
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to chime in here to say that I've been following this discussion closely and to recognize that a number of important points have been made about this issue. I don’t have all the answers just yet but am working to get greater clarity on where this proposal stands.
Thanks for your patience,
Sally
Sally Wentworth
Vice President, Global Policy Development Internet Society [log in to unmask]
On Feb 17, 2017, at 3:11 PM, Ian Peter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I also agree.
And add that the absence of any comment to date on this from either ISOC or PIR is, I hope, because a response is being considered and the current position reversed. But at least a holding response would be a good idea, the current silence is concerning.
Ian Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Christian de Larrinaga
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 3:56 AM
To: Richard Hill
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Why is ISOC's PIR promoting a private global copyright censorship court for domains?
Good to see some clarity from this list. As I hope is obvious I fully
agree with the need for PIR to engage in an open inclusive process as
has been eloquently described.
I hope that PIR is encouraged to engage to build that dialogue.
Christian
Richard Hill <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
17 February 2017 at 16:06
I fully agree with all the comments regarding using an open and
inclusive process to develop any such schemes, and in particular I
agree with Brandt's comment below.
Best,
Richard
Brandt Dainow <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
17 February 2017 at 16:03
+1
PIR's "About Us" states their purpose is to represent the public and
to give people "a powerful voice" - it is clear that "the public"
(that's us) are not convinced this step represents the interests of
the public and that there are plenty of public groups who want a voice in this issue.
PIR must abandon commitment to the initiative, go right back to the
start, open a comprehensive consultative process, with published
submissions and public discussion, give time for debate, publish a
position paper outlining their response and proposed course of
action, allow for feedback on the position paper, and ONLY THEN be in
a position to move. It may be that this will lead to abandoning the
proposal, or additional safeguards to handle legitimate concerns, but
what is certain is that whatever happens will have had more thought put into it.
Regards,
Brandt Dainow
[log in to unmask]
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandt_Dainow
http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/brandt.dainow
-----Original Message-----
From: InternetPolicy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of matthew shears
Sent: 17 February 2017 15:49
To: Phil Corwin; [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Why is ISOC's PIR promoting a private
global copyright censorship court for domains?
+ 1 Phil
On 17/02/2017 15:43, Phil Corwin wrote:
IMHO we need more than a webinar with some slides. We need anopen and detailed dialogue to answer the many questions that are not
extended,
addressed by the DNA documents and to solicit the broad input from
all stakeholders that their closed process did not permit.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLCwrote:
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 17, 2017, at 1:30 PM, Christian de Larrinaga
<[log in to unmask]>
Perhaps I could ask if PIR would hold or join a webinar or some_______________________________________________
other service to communicate and discuss what they are considering
doing (in our name) ?
best
Christian
Jeremy Malcolm <mailto:[log in to unmask]>--
14 February 2017 at 01:00
For those who may have missed it, ISOC's Public Interest Registry
is planning to establish by the end of the quarter a new
compulsory private arbitration system that would allow copyright
owners to cancel .org domain names based on allegations of copyright infringement:
http://domainincite.com/21517-the-pirate-bay-likely-to-be-sunk-as-
or
g-adopts-udrp-for-copyright
This is also being pushed as an international best practice
standard for other domain registries to adopt:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/healthy-domains-initiative-c
en
sorship-through-shadow-regulation
This hardly seems like a measure that's in the "public interest".
What do ISOC members think about this proposal?
_______________________________________________
To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into
the ISOC Member Portal:
https://portal.isoc.org/
Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
Christian de Larrinaga
-------------------------
_______________________________________________
To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into
the ISOC Member Portal:
https://portal.isoc.org/
Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13918 - Release Date:
02/09/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into
the ISOC Member Portal:
https://portal.isoc.org/
Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy &
Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
_______________________________________________
To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the
ISOC Member Portal:
https://portal.isoc.org/
Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
matthew shears <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
17 February 2017 at 15:49
+ 1 Phil
Phil Corwin <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
17 February 2017 at 15:43
IMHO we need more than a webinar with some slides. We need an
extended, open and detailed dialogue to answer the many questions
that are not addressed by the DNA documents and to solicit the broad
input from all stakeholders that their closed process did not permit.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
Christian de Larrinaga <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
17 February 2017 at 13:29
Perhaps I could ask if PIR would hold or join a webinar or some other
service to communicate and discuss what they are considering doing
(in our name) ?
best
Christian
--
Christian de Larrinaga
_______________________________________________
To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the
ISOC Member Portal:
https://portal.isoc.org/
Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
_______________________________________________
To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the
ISOC Member Portal:
https://portal.isoc.org/
Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
_______________________________________________
To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
https://portal.isoc.org/
Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.