EFF raises deep concerns on .ORG contract renewal to ICANN

[Stephanie Perrin]

Thanks Kathy, very timely and useful!
Stephanie

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 21, 2019, at 13:34, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at dnrc.tech> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Stephanie, Sam and All,
> 
> As you write this important letter to the Board on behalf of NCSG, let me share the very recent work of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. EFF, as you know, filed a petition for reconsideration on ICANN's renewal/replacements of the .ORG with significantly different terms.  On Monday, EFF filed its response to ICANN. 
> 
> In addition to removing the price caps, ICANN extended to .ORG "rights protections mechanisms" which were not created for noncommercial registrants. These include the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), an ultra-fast, ultra-cheap method of suspending a domain in New gTLDs -- never intended commercial vs. noncommercial use of domain names (such as criticism and comparison). EFF is very concerned, as was NCSG in our comments.
> 
> EFF's rebuttal (filed Monday) is here -- https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-19-3-electronic-frontier-requestor-rebuttal-board-proposed-determination-19nov19-en.pdf
> 
> The full EFF Request for Reconsideration matter is here -- https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-19-3-electronic-frontier-request-2019-08-01-en
> 
> **** 
> 
> Some central paragraphs of EFF"s letter of Monday to the ICANN Board:
> 
> "What cost-benefit analysis was made of the dangers to .ORG registrants from being thrown into URS proceedings, or the likelihood that a system ill-equipped for these cases would make erroneous decisions, increasing the risk of unjustified suspensions of .ORG registrations?3 According to the Proposed Determination, ICANN staff had no obligation to demonstrate that it had considered this whatsoever4—which is exactly why the Multistakeholder Model is so important here. At no time has ICANN org shown any knowledge of the dangers of applying the URS to millions of legacy, noncommercial registrants. At no time has ICANN org refuted EFF’s concerns for itself and other .ORG registrants."
> "...pending before the GNSO’s Rights Protections Mechanisms Policy Development Process Working Group right now is the question of whether we—the GNSO and ICANN—should extend the URS from new gTLDs to legacy gTLDs. As EFF wrote in its Reconsideration Request, this question has been directed by the GNSO Council to the currently in-progress RPM PDP Working Group as a charter question for that group."
> 
> To the question of weighing the efficiency of having one contract for all gTLDs vs following the Multistakeholder Model on the policies we negotiate and the applications we set for them:
> 
> " 'Efficiency' alone cannot outweigh the Core Value of “open, transparent and bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development processes.” ICANN’s Mission of coordinating the allocation and assignment of names in the DNS through the policies “developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder process” must supersede the slight convenience of harmonization among RAs. 
> 
> "IV. The Recent News that Internet Society Intends to Sell the Public Interest Registry to a Private Equity Firm Magnifies Concerns About the Agreement’s Impact on .ORG Registrants."
> 
> Best, Kathy
> 
> --
> 
> Kathy Kleiman
> American University Washington College of Law
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191121/ea8100af/attachment.htm>