[NCUC-DISCUSS] [Meeting Report] PIR Advisory Council

[farzaneh badii]

Hi Martin,

PIR has a validation process for allocating .NGO domain names. Is this why
NPOC could not get one? I am personally not in favor of validation
processes.

As to the copyright dispute res, yes as I mentioned, we discussed it
briefly they say it's shelved but it is "temporarily" shelved so they might
re-open it but I don't think they will do so this time without our
consultations.




Farzaneh

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:

> Joly, I have arguments for both sides. Being a lawyer I am more use to do
> the distinction myself.
>
> Rafik, yeap, I was referring to that. It's been a hot topic for a while
> and it won't go away anytime soon. PIR should be the last place to see that
> implemented, that makes it specially weird.
>
> Any how, count with me.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> On 11 Oct 2017 21:57, "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>
> Martin Pablo Silva Valent
> ​ wrote:​
>
>
>> ​​
>> 2) As case study: NPOC tried to register a .NGO a while back, and it was
>> denied because NPOC didn’t had separate personality from ICANN, it was an
>> non-commercial legal entity itself. Regardless of the special case, I think
>> is important to understand the role .ngo has in the DNS ecosystem,
>> thousands of NGO or non-commercial organization are still going to .org
>> because of this restriction. PIR position on this asumes that
>> non-commercial civil society organization all have to look like the ideal
>> US/europe NGO with an approved state non commercial charter. Personally I
>> think this inflexible approach leaves a worldwide civil society community
>> of organization out in the open on the DNS, instead of granting ll the
>> benefits .ngo could give.
>
>
> ​I guess this is a matter of opinion. To my way of thinking it is valuable
> to have this distinction.
>
> ​j
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Farzi,
>> I have two comments for next round to chew on.
>> 1) I heard PIR almost implemented a alternative, additional, mechanism to
>> protect rights (IP right) beyond the classic UDPR, we should be involved in
>> that, if true, to stop any over reaching IP right mechanism.
>> 2) As case study: NPOC tried to register a .NGO a while back, and it was
>> denied because NPOC didn’t had separate personality from ICANN, it was an
>> non-commercial legal entity itself. Regardless of the special case, I think
>> is important to understand the role .ngo has in the DNS ecosystem,
>> thousands of NGO or non-commercial organization are still going to .org
>> because of this restriction. PIR position on this asumes that
>> non-commercial civil society organization all have to look like the ideal
>> US/europe NGO with an approved state non commercial charter. Personally I
>> think this inflexible approach leaves a worldwide civil society community
>> of organization out in the open on the DNS, instead of granting ll the
>> benefits .ngo could give.
>>
>> Food for thoughts!
>>
>> If you want me to going the work related to this AC let me know, I would
>> love to.
>>
>> Cheers all!
>> Martín Silva
>>
>> On Oct 11, 2017, at 7:16 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Here is my brief note of PIR meeting. Please note that some aspects of
>> the meeting were confidential so I cannot report on them. PIR is the
>> registry for .org and .NGO and NCUC get to appoint an AC member to
>> represent NCUC.
>>
>> Here is the brief:
>>
>> - The advisory council role was discussed. It was agreed that the AC has
>> to have an active role and provide recommendations on various issues
>> related  to PIR
>>
>> - I emphasized on stronger and enhanced communication between Staff,
>> Board and Advisory Council.
>>
>> - We raised the issue of GDPR and I relayed Ayden's questions. PIR will
>> come up with a plan to comply with GDPR. PIR is also active in the RDS
>> group. Staff advised us that they are open to suggestions and
>> recommendations with this regard.
>>
>> - PIR discussed its abuse and take down policy. It emphasized that its
>> abuse and take down policy is predominantly technical unless there are
>> obvious child abuse websites which will be taken down.
>>
>> - SCADR is shelved But they want to have a dialogue about it and
>> they want to know how to re-open the issue in the future if they need to.
>> My impression is that the issue is closed for the moment and they are
>> asking the AC to advise them on how to seek public consultation on any
>> policy issue.
>>
>> - Since AC was advised about SCADR very late, we raised the point that
>> this should not have happened and in the future, there should be more
>> briefing of AC. Fortunately, there is now a Board liaison to AC and I also
>> asked if we could be observers of the Board meetings.
>>
>>
>> - The meeting also focused on .NGO and how to encourage more domain
>> registration in .NGO. Here is the PIR toolkit  for NGOs
>> http://toolkit.ngo/
>>
>>
>> Best
>> Farzaneh
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 <(218)%20565-9365> Skype:punkcast
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20171012/6bf615b9/attachment.html>