[PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: NCSG Meeting with the Board : Topics (Constituency Day)

[Wendy Seltzer]

Thanks for raising this, Kathy and Mitch. It is hugely important that
these takedowns not become part of ICANN's common framework or "best
practices" for registries or registrars.

--Wendy

On October 20, 2016 3:17:40 PM PDT, Kathy Kleiman
<kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
>Hi Tapani,
>Tx for the time until end of day. I would like to introduce another 
>important and timely question for our NCSG/Board meeting. It is one
>that 
>come 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 statement 
>of Summer 2015 that ICANN does not policy content, 
>https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police.
> 
>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 and tx,
>Kathy
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>PC-NCSG mailing list
>PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
wendy at seltzer.org mobile +1.617.863.0613