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

[avri doria]

Hi,

I agree that we do not wish to see these become best practices, but I do
not not see any reason why they should, or could, be prohibited.

What I think is most important is that any registrant know before
engaging a sld in one of these names, that this is the condition they
will be governed by.

avri

(note SOI, I do have a small research contract I do for Donuts, but it
has nothing to do with this policy of theirs and I have no binding to
support their policy causes, I have never discussed this issue with Donuts.)

On 23-Oct-16 11:10, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> 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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus