Thanks Ayden. I was not involved with this but I don't think it was only ISOC who wanted to take actions. Also this part of the statement worries me: 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. We cannot wait for Public Interest Registry to reflect on the concerns and get back to us with another concerning proposal. What they need to do is to halt development and seek comments on the multistakeholder community and address these concerns with the involvement of the community. Or just halt it for good. In other words we need to be engaged with their process. I am on their advisory council, joined very recently ( last week or so) and I might not know how exactly the process should work but I think they can't take similar steps as before to address the concerns of the community. Farzaneh On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Excellent news. ISOC should be applauded! > > > Ayden Férdeline > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Sally Wentworth <[log in to unmask]> > Date: On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:15 pm > Subject: Fwd: Re: [Internet Policy] Why is ISOC's PIR promoting a private > global copyright censorship court for domains? > To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> > CC: > > > wrote: > > Colleagues, > > PIR has just issued a statement that may be of interest to those engaged > in this discussion. > > https://pir.org/systemic-copyright-infringement-alternative-dispute- > resolution-policy-scdrp/ > > 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 > > Sally Wentworth > Vice President, Global Policy Development > Internet Society > [log in to unmask] > > > > 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 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct > 202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax > 202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell > > Twitter: @VlawDC > > "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey > > > -----Original Message----- > From: InternetPolicy [mailto:[log in to unmask] > <[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] <[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] <[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 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 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct > 202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax > 202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/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]> > > wrote: > > 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 <+44%207712%20472987> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct > 202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax > 202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/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. > > >