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

Tue Jun 27 16:15:31 UTC 2017

Just to followup on this, and it came up again during today's call,
apparently Brian Beckham of WIPO was completely mischaracterizing
things, see the post by James Bladel to that other IGO list at:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-June/000185.html

It's odd that Beckham would raise the issue *again *today, despite the
above email being sent on June 19th, more than a week ago. So, the
Rapid Suspension was simply an IGO proposal, and there was absolutely
no "agreement" by ICANN or Crocker to do anything. Beckham simply
quoted the IGO proposal from page 3 of:

https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-icann-board-to-council-chairs-04oct16-en.pdf

(very top) which was appended to Crocker's correspondence, rather than
quoting anything Crocker himself said.

That's the thing about "immunity", you can make false statements and
mischaracterize other people's alleged "agreements", with impunity,
and do it repeatedly (i.e. he did it on June 16th, in the email, and
then again today, after already being corrected by Bladel in the June
19th email).

Is it any wonder that WIPO and other IGOs didn't participate in this
PDP as members, when their statements can be challenged, preferring
instead to work in opaque private groups and behind closed doors with
the GAC, diametrically opposed to the transparency required of ICANN
processes? Their input should be weighted accordingly and be viewed
with skepticism.

Sincerely,

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

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> George:
>
> In regard to this Portion of Brian's email--
>         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).”
>
> --my assumption upon reading it was that any Board effort to facilitate such a mechanism would consist of a request to GNSO Council to consider a PDP to launch such an initiative, as the Board has no authority to create such a  mechanism on its own, and any policy creating a new rapid take down/suspension mechanisms would need to go through the standard PDP process.
>
> Given that the Board made that statement last October, it would be my personal  view that it would be best to have its consideration taken up by a new PDP WG, as it would require deep inquiry into the availability and effectiveness of current available harm estoppel measures, and introducing it into our WG's deliberations at this late stage could create unacceptable delay in issuance of our Final Report.
>
> Any such inquiry would also have to review the effectiveness and suitability of the URS for such situations, as it was my understanding that one of the reasons for its creation was to address such scenarios. Finally, it is not at all clear to me why such a mechanism, if created, should only be useable by IGOs.
>
> Best regards,
> 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
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 7:55 PM
> To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: [Discussion-igo-rc] Meetings in Johannesburg relating to IGO Protection
>
> 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-pr
>> otections-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
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp