[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: [Discussion-igo-rc] Meetings in Johannesburg relating to IGO Protection

[George Kirikos]

This appears to be a blatant attempt to conduct ICANN policymaking
through appeals directly to the ICANN Board, rather than going through
the GNSO PDP process, and is entirely inappropriate. It's essentially
a faster version of the URS, so should be within our PDP's scope.

There are courts that can grant emergency injunctions. ICANN's board
shouldn't be deciding these policies outside established
policy-development processes (i.e. the GNSO), especially when they
affect rights of registrants to due process. We've seen all too often
the innocent sites that are taken down when due process isn't given.

Of course, one can also make abuse reports to payment processors,
webhosting companies, etc. And, they should contact law enforcement
(IGOs are claiming serious crimes are being committed, yet want an
unaccountable private system of speedy "justice" to handle them,
instead of the public and accountable court system.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/


On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> Working Group members:
>
>
>
> FYI, below is a message sent by Brian Beckham of WIPO to the informal
> discussion group on IGO issues chaired by Bruce Tonkin.
>
>
>
> In regard to the “rapid relief mechanism” referenced in the email, I would
> agree that it falls outside the scope of our work.
>
>
>
> Best to all,
>
> Philip
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>
> Virtualaw LLC
>
> 1155 F Street, NW
>
> Suite 1050
>
> Washington, DC 20004
>
> 202-559-8597/Direct
>
> 202-559-8750/Fax
>
> 202-255-6172/Cell
>
>
>
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>
>
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
>
> From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Beckham, Brian
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 5:33 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin; discussion-igo-rc at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] Meetings in Johannesburg relating to IGO
> Protection
>
>
>
> Thanks for this update Bruce.
>
>
>
> We are keen to see at the Tuesday session in Johannesburg the extent to
> which the IGO curative WG has incorporated (i) longstanding GAC Advice, (ii)
> the GAC’s comments to the IGO curative WG Initial Report, and (iii)
> agreement reached in Copenhagen on the public policy rationale for the
> protection sought by IGOs.
>
>
>
> On a slightly different note, I would again like to recall here ICANN’s
> agreement in an October 4, 2016 letter from Dr. Crocker to the GNSO Council
> Chair and Vice-Chairs that “ICANN will facilitate the creation of a
> mechanism through which an Eligible IGO may obtain a rapid temporary
> suspension of a domain name in situations where it would not be reasonable
> for it to use the agreed Dispute Resolution Mechanism [i.e., where] there is
> an obvious risk of imminent harm from the claimed abuse of such domain name,
> (e.g. such as fraudulently soliciting donations in the wake of a
> humanitarian disaster).”
>
>
>
> Again, just to briefly recall, the GAC’s comments to the IGO curative WG
> Initial Report framed this not as a mere repackaging of the existing URS (or
> UDRP), but as “an emergency relief (e.g., 24-48 hours) domain name
> suspension mechanism to combat risk of imminent harm” and noted that this
> previously-agreed “Rapid relief mechanism” falls outside the scope of the
> IGO curative WG.
>
>
>
> Best regards, and safe travels to everyone.
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
> From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 11:03 AM
> To: discussion-igo-rc at icann.org
> Subject: [Discussion-igo-rc] Meetings in Johannesburg relating to IGO
> Protection
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> Please note that I am now using a different email address.
>
>
>
> I have had a few questions about whether there will be any further
> facilitated discussion on  IGO protections in Johannesburg.
>
>
>
> (1) Regarding the watch list suggestion from the facilitated discussion in
> Copenhagen.   I am aware that ICANN staff have done some further analysis of
> the options to provide such a service and will brief the Board.    I expect
> the Board will consider the information, and hopefully we will hear whether
> they plan to proceed with some form of service.
>
>
>
> (2) The GNSO IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Policy Development Process
> Working Group will be holding a 90 min public session at the Johannesburg
> meeting at 10:30am on Tuesday 27 June 2017.
>
>
>
> Details are available at:
>
>
>
> https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49J/gnso-igo-ingo-curative-rights-protections-policy-development-process-working-group
>
>
>
> I plan to attend this session to learn more about how the policy work has
> evolved since the public comment process on their initial report.   I
> recommend all members of this discussion list that will be in Johannesburg
> come along as well.
>
>
>
> I don't believe there is value in having a further facilitated dialogue
> until we all know how the work of the working group has progressed since
> Copenhagen.
>
>
>
> I will be happy to chat to anyone after that session, and open to any
> suggestions on how I can help in any way.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp