<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 10 Oct 2015, at 5:18 am, Jeremy Malcolm <<a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" class="">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
From
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared">https://eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-feared</a>:<br class="">
<br class="">
"ICANN, the global domain name authority, provoked a furore earlier
this year over proposals that could <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/changes-domain-name-rules-place-user-privacy-jeopardy" class="">limit
the ability for owners of domain names</a> to shield their
personal information from copyright and trademark trolls, identity
thieves, scammers and harassers.
<p class="">The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at
least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and
.jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must
provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database
of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”</p></div></div></blockquote>These proposals are of significant concern. </div><div class="">It is isn’t just the issue of domain name privacy services - its also that the ‘accurate’ clause can potentially be used as justification for validation provisions that we see LEAs forcing onto registrars that have led to the de-registration of many valid domain names for no good reason. </div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><p class="">The same provision also requires countries to adopt an equivalent
to ICANN's flawed Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy
(UDRP), despite the fact that this controversial policy is overdue
for a formal review by ICANN, which might result in the
significant revision of this policy. Where would this leave the
TPP countries, that are locked in to upholding a UDRP-like policy
for their own domains for the indefinite future?</p></div></div></blockquote><div class="">And how this will be interpreted is very unclear. Many ccTLDs have very different dispute resolution procedures, often for very valid reasons (for example, dispute resolution processes within the domain name system might be very minimal if domain name registration rules effectively put domain name disputes within the purview of other forms of law, such as local business registration rules). </div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""><p class="">The TPP's prescription of rules for domain names completely
disregards the fact that most country code domain registries have
their own, open, community-driven processes for determining rules
for managing domain name disputes. More than that, this top-down
rulemaking on domain names is in direct contravention of the U.S.
administration's own <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-resolution/71/text" class="">firmly-stated
commitment</a> to uphold the multi-stakeholder model of Internet
governance. Obviously, Internet users cannot trust the
administration that it means what it says when it gives
lip-service to multi-stakeholder governance—and that has
ramifications that go even even deeper than this terrible TPP
deal.”</p></div></div></blockquote></div><div class="">We’ll be presenting these to our government as an example of how the trade branch of government (Dept of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Australia, USTR in the US) is usurping the policy role of the appropriate branch of government for dealing with internet issues via ICANN and local cc registrars (Dept of Communications in Australia, NTIA in the US), and actively opposing the governments position on transparent multistakeholder process vs secretive top down. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’d urge everyone in a nation that is potentially a signatory to the TPP to urge this to be rejected, in its current form, by your national parliament. If we can stop it in a couple of major nations (there appears to be a good chance in the US) we can not only stop this terrible agreement, but hopefully spread the message that this form of ultra-secretive, without public input, form of treaty making is inappropriate for the modern world. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">David</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>