COICA

[Amr Elsadr]

I haven't seen any comment by ICANN on the website or any of the newsletters
regarding this issue at all.  Isn't this unusual or am I missing something??

Amr Elsadr M.D.
Chief Operating Officer
Tele-Med International
http://www.telemedint.net
Tel: +2(023)534-6098
Fax: +2(023)534-6029

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
Konstantinos Komaitis
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 1:16 PM
To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: COICA

This Senate Bill is far from law and it appears that there is strong
opposition against it. That's the good news. What is more worrying is
whether and how ICANN will be involved in this. If the trademark community
and WIPO convince ICANN to proceed with a similar to this Bill policy, then
things can turn awfully wrong. What we know so far is that free speech or
freedom of expression are not as much a priority as the protection of
trademarks (we saw it happening and we continue to see it happening in the
context of the UDRP). We need to keep our eyes open and watch carefully how
ICANN will be responding to this.

KK


On 20/11/2010 05:18, "Alex Gakuru" <gakuru at gmail.com> wrote:

they approved it yesterday,

"The US Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a controversial bill
<http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/11/senate-judiciary-backs-onl
ine.php> that would give the authorities dramatic new copyright enforcement
powers allowing it to take down entire domains "dedicated to online piracy"
rather than just targeting files that actually infringe copyright law."
http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/111910_Judiciary_Committee_Approves_
Online_Copyright_Enforcement_Bill

see also;

"CADNA now encourages the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN), the global organization that sets policy for the Internet's
naming and addressing system, to supplement the Senate's work by including
in its policies provisions that will similarly prevent infringement and
counterfeiting outside of the U.S.'s jurisdictional reach."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cadna-commends-chairman-leahy-and-th
e-senate-judiciary-committee-for-passing-the-combating-online-infringements-
and-counterfeits-act-out-of-committee-109242769.html

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:


> -----Original Message-----
>
> because of  ICANN's Culture of Secrecy, nothing has been said. We also
> do not know why [ICANN] did it - maybe it just did not fit into anyone's
> schedule.  So a discussion that brings out these issues and explores the
> reasons why it might have made sense for them to have made the decision
> they did, might also be useful.
>

I think Avri's comment above indicates why we SHOULD make a statement on
this as NCSG or NCUC.
First, it encourages and promotes support within the broader ICANN
community. Second, if indeed ICANN's staff and Board refused to attend this
thing for the wrong reasons, we push it in the right direction.

This has been an interesting discussion regarding the status of NCSG as a
"creature" of ICANN or as an independent civil society organization that can
take positions. Obviously it kind of straddles the fence.