[NCUC-DISCUSS] Domain name rules in today's TPP leak

[David Cake]

> On 10 Oct 2015, at 5:18 am, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
> 
> From 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>:
> 
> "ICANN, the global domain name authority, provoked a furore earlier this year over proposals that could limit the ability for owners of domain names <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/changes-domain-name-rules-place-user-privacy-jeopardy> to shield their personal information from copyright and trademark trolls, identity thieves, scammers and harassers.
> 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.”
> 
These proposals are of significant concern.
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.
> 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?
> 
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).
> 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 firmly-stated commitment <https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-resolution/71/text> 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.”
> 

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.

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.

David

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20151011/7ebbd3ed/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20151011/7ebbd3ed/attachment.sig>