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

[Mueller, Milton L]

All these points were made very clearly at the RightsCon panel last week. 
https://twitter.com/jimpren/status/847369394703355905


> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss