Certainly looks interesting to me. I think we should weigh in, and this may be a good way. Stephanie Perrin On 2017-02-19 09:13, Ayden FĂ©rdeline wrote: > Might this letter being drafted by the Internet Commerce Association > be something that the NCSG would like to sign on in support of? > > Ayden FĂ©rdeline > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Why is ISOC's PIR promoting a private >> global copyright censorship court for domains? >> Local Time: 17 February 2017 11:25 AM >> UTC Time: 17 February 2017 11:25 >> From: [log in to unmask] >> To: Graham Cobb <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] >> <[log in to unmask]> >> >> Hello to members of ISOC's Internet Policy discussion group. >> >> I am Counsel to the Internet Commerce Association (ICA). Last week I >> posted a blog concerning the HDI proposal at >> http://www.internetcommerce.org/dna-unveils-hdi-with-copyright-udrp/ >> . ICA subsequently posted a statement of concern regarding the >> Copyright ADRP which can be found at >> http://www.internetcommerce.org/ica-deeply-concerned-with-proposal-to-enable-domain-transfers-based-upon-copyright-claims/ >> . >> >> This past week I have been attending the Intersessional meeting of >> ICANN's Non-Contracted Party House (NCPH) in Reykjavik, Iceland in my >> capacity as one of the GNSO Councilors representing the Business >> Constituency (BC - and noting that the BC has not taken any position >> on any component of HDI and that this communication is being >> undertaken in my ICA role and not on behalf of the BC). During the >> meeting I engaged in conversations with many other members of the >> NCPH who share substantial concerns regarding the Copyright ADRP and >> its imminent implementation by PIR. >> >> Those concerned NCPH delegates have asked me to draft a letter that >> can be signed by individuals and organizations requesting that PIR >> and ISOC undertake an open and transparent dialogue with the broad >> Internet community before making any final decision on whether and in >> what form to implement the Copyright ADRP. We share the common belief >> that PIR, as the registry operator affiliated with ISOC, has a >> particular responsibility to engage in such a dialogue before >> granting ISOC's implicit blessing to an unprecedented dispute >> resolution procedure concerning copyright disputes. That is >> particularly true given that the DNA developed the HDI components >> without undertaking the broad outreach and discussion beyond its >> membership that it had initially indicated would be forthcoming. >> >> As I am uncertain of the propriety of circulating such a draft >> communication on this list, I am requesting that individuals and >> organizations that may have an interest in joining such a >> communication contact me direct at [log in to unmask] . When the letter >> is final I will share it on this mailing list, and in the interim I >> will likely have more to say on this subject in my ICA Counsel capacity. >> >> Thank you for your attention. >> >> Regards, >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: InternetPolicy [[log in to unmask]] on >> behalf of Graham Cobb [[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 1:56 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Why is ISOC's PIR promoting a private >> global copyright censorship court for domains? >> >> On 16/02/17 18:17, Livingood, Jason wrote: >> > On 2/16/17, 12:34 PM, "InternetPolicy on behalf of Brandt Dainow" >> <[log in to unmask] on behalf of >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> I am firmly convinced this is an example of "mission creep" - the >> job of domain name management is to manage allocation of, and >> disputes over, >> >> ownership of domain names. It is not the job of domain name >> management to have any say in what those domain names are used for. >> > >> > The alternative appears to be country-by-country mandated domain >> name blocking >> > (happening increasingly in Europe), which many MSH organizations have >> in the >> > past said risks balkanizing the Internet. >> >> I don't accept that that is the only alternative: in my view it is just >> as unreasonable. >> >> However, even if that is the alternative, it is better for many reasons: >> the effects are limited to the country concerned; the process is >> governed by the laws of the people affected; blocking is often >> ineffective; the cost of silencing a domain owner worldwide are much >> higher. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >