[NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: Brief points on Public Interest Registry advisory council meeting

[Klein, Hans K]

Good work everyone in penetrating the Newspeak.

The seemingly innocuous phrase,  “Development of the concept of the Systematic Copyright Alternative Dispute Resolution translates into “CONTENT REGULATION”

What is needed is a clear public statement that 1) this is content regulation and 2) it has no place in ICANN.

Hans




From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 8:55 PM
To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org; Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: Brief points on Public Interest Registry advisory council meeting

I absolutely agree with Kathy. We don't want discussion about content to take place within ICANN other than to say it's out of scope. Next, please.

And what an unusual concept, Kathy: violations of law should be dealt with in courts of law. Provocative, revolutionary: only at ICANN. If we could only port that to the RPM group you'd be able to retire your Chair position by the end of the month!


Thanks Farizi for letting us know what is going on at PIR. As usual, you are on top of things. Great job!

Best,

Ed Morris
________________________________
From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 9:23 PM
To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: Brief points on Public Interest Registry advisory council meeting

Except that content regulation is expressly outside the scope of ICANN under the new Bylaws -- and thank goodness!  (We have more than enough to do with our current scope. Fadi was absolutely right IMHO when he says we run the infrastructure, roads and bridges of the Internet, but we don't check what ever car, truck or bus carries.) ICANN does not do content.

But where a discussion should go, I don't know. Per Ayden's ideas below, it must be in a VERY public forum for this work to take place. But do we even need this copyright arbitration work done at all?  The "judicial remedy" -- going to court to take down the "pervasive infringement" -- that PIR talked about in its meeting with us in Copenhagen -- would seem to be a rapid process through any court with jurisdiction over PIR (which is located in the US).

Best, Kathy

On 4/4/2017 4:14 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
A huge thank you to you, Farzaneh, for representing us so professionally and intelligently on the Public Interest Registry (PIR) Advisory Council. It is useful to receive updates on their work, and I look forward to reviewing the below-mentioned concept paper when it is available. My initial reaction - having not read the concept paper, of course - is that the best way for the PIR to receive feedback on the Systematic Copyright Alternative Dispute Resolution would be to keep the deliberations within existing ICANN mechanisms. One option might be the establishment of a Policy Development Process (I realise that PIR cannot just ask that one be initiated), as they are something our membership is already familiar with, and allow for the participation of all impacted and interested stakeholders. In any case, all stakeholders should in my opinion have a mechanism through which to meaningfully input into this policy prior to a decision being made to adopt it.

- Ayden


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: Brief points on Public Interest Registry advisory council meeting
Local Time: 4 April 2017 7:31 PM
UTC Time: 4 April 2017 18:31
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
To: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>

Dear NCUC members

I am representing NCUC on the PIR advisory council and had my first meeting
was
a week ago. Below are a number of issues that were discussed which I could disclose.

1. Development of the concept of the Systematic Copyright Alternative Dispute Resolution was within the past 18 months, presented at 4 ICANN meetings and presented at two Internet and Jurisdiction Project Meetings. The advisory council was not consulted with directly.

2.  PIR asked the advisory council to come up with a concept paper on the process of how to ask the community about SCADR to determine whether or not to implement such a proposal. The concept paper on the process of seeking feedback can then be sent by the representatives of the advisory council to their respective community (in our case to NCUC) for comments.

3. I requested to have more information about the SCADR sent to the advisory council. Perhaps a background paper would be good.The dissemination of the background paper will be limited to the advisory council.

4. There will be a face to face meeting for the advisory council between September to October


Best


Farzaneh





_______________________________________________

Ncuc-discuss mailing list

Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>

http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170405/6d6c572b/attachment-0002.html>