[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: [council] Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group"
icann at leap.com
Fri Oct 7 13:27:59 UTC 2016
P.S. One of the obvious ways to go after fraudulent donation sites is
also to use WHOIS accuracy complaints -- most (if not all?) fraudulent
donation sites are not using true WHOIS, otherwise law enforcement
would have a "slam dunk" case and simply show up at their door to
arrest them! These domain names would also be relatively new (i.e. age
under 2 weeks).
If we're designing " special rules" for these edge cases (i.e. under
0.1% of all domain names registered) [albeit, the law is perfectly
capable of handling these edge cases already], there should be a clear
safe harbour for the 99.9%. i.e. if one has true WHOIS or if the
domain name is older than 2 weeks, one should never be subject to
these proposed extra-judicial procedures. Except, the IGOs never say
that --- they instead propose procedures that would apply to 100% of
domain name registrants, not creating any demarcation or safe harbour.
This allows for an ever-expanding definition of "abuse" and
ever-expanding use of an extra-judicial procedure which (at one time)
was supposed to be limited to certain exception "edge cases".
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> Personally, I don't see much merit to their proposals. They provide
> little justification, beyond a "wish list", unlike our own work which
> has been in-depth and has gone on for 2 years. Instead of
> participating in the actual PDP, it seems they seek to undermine our
> hard work by putting forth a parallel report outside of the
> established process. They try to use the language of a PDP (i.e. that
> they've reached a "consensus") to try to establish some legitimacy,
> despite it being a closed opaque process from an unrepresentative
> minority of the ICANN community (i.e. just representing the views of
> some IGOs, some GAC members and some ICANN Board members). All of our
> discussions were held in public, in contrast, and they were invited
> numerous times to participate.
> Paul Tattersfield mentioned the existing URS in a comment -- court
> appeals are possible under the URS (the IGOs don't want that in their
> proposed process, though).
> Shockingly, the proposal doesn't even restrict the acronyms (2 per
> IGO) to those that exist in the Article 6ter database! ie. it
> completely ignored our hard work on this topic.
> In their "background", on page 2, their justification for special
> rules is that "IGOs perform important global missions with public
> funds". This type of reasoning is a slippery slope, and could apply
> equally to many other "worthy" organizations....so, where does it
> stop, if a precedent is created here? Laws exist for these situations,
> and we should not be creating new law, but instead be reflecting
> existing law. Once we start creating "worthy" institutions by
> elevating them above the law, implicitly we are creating the
> "unworthy", or perhaps the "politically unconnected" or "deplorables"
> whose rights get trampled upon in order to appease the "worthy." In
> contrast, the law treats everyone equally, both "worthy" and
> "unworthy", based on legal standards.
> The "Eligible IGOs" from the "GAC List of IGOs" (point 3 on page 2)
> would not be limited in number --- it could grow in the future, and
> indeed there'd be incentives for it to grow, as any IGOs not on the
> list would want to be on it.
> They seek to recreate the TMCH via a new process, whereas it would be
> trivial to simply allow Article 6ter marks to be on it, without a new
> process. This goes back to my earlier point, that they appear to want
> to add acronyms for "protection" that do not appear in the Article
> 6ter database currently.
> Their DRP would eliminate recourse to national courts.
> There are far better mechanisms to go after fraudulent solicitation of
> funds following a disaster --- e.g. going after the webhosting
> operator, DNS provider, and most importantly, the payment processors
> (Visa, Mastercard, American Express, PayPal, etc.). They can act
> instantly, compared to any "rapid relief" mechanism. Indeed, any such
> schemes are clearly ILLEGAL --- why is it that IGOs don't simply go to
> the legal authorities (police, etc.) to solve those criminal acts? We
> don't need to create new institutions -- these institutions have
> developed since the dawn of civilization. Indeed, they can go to the
> courts, too, to get injunctions, etc., working within the legal
> If ICE can take down a torrent page due to copyright infringement, e.g.
> which went through the court system via appropriate warrants, why are
> IGOs not pursuing the same measures?? While they use an example that
> is clearly illegal, they don't recognize that legal mechanisms exist
> in those situations -- they propose to use solutions outside the legal
> system (i.e. ones we create for them). We should instead be pointing
> them to the existing legal system.
> I find it amusing that the "penalty" for 3 reverse domain name
> hijackings is a mere 1 year in the penalty booth. It's actually a big
> "tell" that they even included this section on page 4, since up to
> that point they portrayed IGOs as "angels", whose needs are "special"
> and above those of other entities. That's an acknowledgement that this
> proposed process CAN be abused, that IGOs are operated by human beings
> who make mistakes, and are just like everyone else. That's why there
> are LAWS, to protect the weak and vulnerable against the strong -- the
> IGOs seek to put themselves above those laws, and strip away the
> protection of due process and the courts for domain name registrants.
> It's time to recognize that abuse can come not just from domain name
> registrants, but from the complainant/accuser, and that our laws
> presume innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. Due process
> exists for a reason.
> George Kirikos
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>> Dear WG members,
>> As mentioned on the WG call earlier today, the Board’s reply to the GNSO
>> Council enclosing the final “small group” proposal on IGO acronyms has just
>> been sent. A copy is enclosed for your review and further discussion.
>> Staff will work with Petter and Phil to confirm the agendas for our next two
>> meetings before ICANN57, in light of our receipt of this proposal and the
>> status of the WG’s ongoing discussions over preliminary recommendations.
>> From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong
>> <mary.wong at icann.org>
>> Date: Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 17:02
>> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at board.icann.org>, Chris Disspain
>> <chris at disspain.uk>, "bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au"
>> <bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>, Markus Kummer
>> <markus.kummer at board.icann.org>, Becky Burr <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>,
>> "board-ops-team at icann.org" <board-ops-team at icann.org>
>> Subject: [council] Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO
>> acronyms protection from the IGO "small group"
>> Dear Councilors,
>> Please find attached the ICANN Board’s reply to the GNSO Council’s letter of
>> 31 May 2016 on the topic of protections for IGOs and the Red Cross. The
>> letter also includes the final proposal on IGO acronyms protection that was
>> worked on by the IGO “small group” of IGO, Board and GAC representatives,
>> facilitated by ICANN staff as appropriate.
>> We will also transmit a copy of this to the co-chairs of the GNSO IGO-INGO
>> Curative Rights Protections PDP Working Group and the GAC.
>> Best regards,
>> Mary Wong
>> Senior Policy Director
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp