ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Re: [gnso-chairs] AW: [soac-discussion] SOPA Discussions

  • To: <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Re: [gnso-chairs] AW: [soac-discussion] SOPA Discussions
  • From: "Mason Cole" <mcole@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:36:57 -0800
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <FD9639322266774594CCBC99E438A05004B8CC8D@s4de8dsaank.west.t-com.de> <31582FA079F2AC4FBC8BA78B67C32AA7084F64F69D@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> <FD9639322266774594CCBC99E438A05004B8CC8E@s4de8dsaank.west.t-com.de> <2EAEDBED-4F8E-4E25-B050-15B86F56DFBD@indom.com> <FD9639322266774594CCBC99E438A05004BD92F9@s4de8dsaank.west.t-com.de> <3E44BB56-7A92-488A-BAEF-69944B53A6E7@indom.com> <4F312E810200005B00084A9A@smtp.law.unh.edu>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AczlytOQNbGS8vUFQJyz/1BiLmBILwAJo35l
  • Thread-topic: [council] Re: [gnso-chairs] AW: [soac-discussion] SOPA Discussions

I agree it's generally outside the scope of the council.  

I do think however the idea of trying to control or eradicate content by means 
of Internet intermediaries (ISPs, registrars, registries, ad service providers, 
payment processors, etc.) is of interest to many of us who participate actively 
in ICANN.  Indeed this is part of the SOPA/PIPA bills' designs.  So should that 
legislation fail in the US, the community might anticipate further attention 
being directed toward ICANN as a means of achieving that agenda.  So we may do 
well to be educated, even if there's little for us to act on as it relates to 
the legislation itself.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue 2/7/2012 11:00 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stéphane Van Gelder
Subject: [council] Re: [gnso-chairs] AW: [soac-discussion] SOPA Discussions
While a session on SOPA (and perhaps also PIPA, the Senate version of a similar 
bill) might be helpful to the community, especially if it focuses on aspects 
that would affect management, expansion and/or security of the DNS, I agree it 
would seem somewhat outside the Council's scope. Question whether, as a general 
topic, it is within the GNSO community's range of direct interests - and 
depending on what the session covers, it might well be.
I'd suggest not adding it to the Council's agenda, but agreeing that such a 
session could be of interest to individual GNSO SGs, Cs and participants.
FWIW it's not clear where either the US Senate or House of Representatives will 
go with the bills. Some co-sponsors have either pulled out or have stated 
publicly that much needs to be reconsidered, while at least one major sponsor 
(Senator Leahy from Vermont) seems to want to keep the bills alive, with 
possible modifications. There will be lots of discussions, hearings and 
negotiations between now and any formal action - and it's likely the DNS 
sections of the original bill will be dropped altogether or be drastically 
changed - so I'm not sure how discussing a previous version of the legislation 
would be entirely helpful (unless a new version of one or both bills is out in 
advance sufficiently of our Costa Rica meeting to enable folks to familiarize 
themselves with it).

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
From:   Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>       
To:      "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Date:   2/7/2012 11:57 AM       
Subject:        [council] Re: [gnso-chairs] AW: [soac-discussion] SOPA 


Please find below an email chain starting with a message from the ALAC Chair. 
Thanks to Wolf for keeping me honest and reminding me that I had forgotten to 
copy the Council here ;)


Le 7 févr. 2012 à 16:06, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Stéphane,
> are you going to inform the council about Olivier's request?
> Kind regards
> Wolf-Ulrich 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Gesendet: Freitag, 3. Februar 2012 11:01
> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
> Cc: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx; gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: Re: [gnso-chairs] AW: [soac-discussion] SOPA Discussions
> I agree with Jeff 100%
> Stéphane
> Le 2 févr. 2012 à 22:27, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>> Jeff, I personally agree - with the knowledge I have so far.
>> Nevertheless I expect different views from councillors. And I think the GNSO 
>> should be prepared just in case such a forum is going to be organized in 
>> Costa Rica.
>> The ccNSO chair has answered to Olivier's request in favour. I think the 
>> GNSO chair should send an answer, too, based on GNSO discussions.
>> Kind regards
>> Wolf-Ulrich 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Februar 2012 22:11
>> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx
>> Betreff: RE: [soac-discussion] SOPA Discussions
>> I have been keeping quiet about this on other lists, but no I do not believe 
>> this is an issue for the GNSO Council to discuss.  This is a matter that 
>> effects national law and would represent a complete side track during the 
>> weekend from official GNSO business.
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the 
>> use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
>> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
>> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
>> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
>> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and 
>> delete the original message.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx] On 
>> Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 4:06 PM
>> To: gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [gnso-chairs] WG: [soac-discussion] SOPA Discussions
>> I wonder whether the GNSO could refrain from such a forum in San José. Is 
>> SOPA (and PIPA) effecting our policy work or not? I think a GNSO 
>> representative should participate in such a discussion.
>> Should we put this on the GNSO weekend agenda in San José, too?
>> Maybe there is interest in discussing the item with the GAC ?!
>> Kind regards
>> Wolf-Ulrich 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Olivier MJ 
>> Crepin-Leblond
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2012 08:27
>> An: soac-discussion@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: ICANN AtLarge Staff
>> Betreff: [soac-discussion] SOPA Discussions
>> Dear SO/AC Chairs,
>> a recent discussion on an ALAC call led to the question whether the ICANN 
>> community might be interested in holding a session in San José, to discuss 
>> the aspects of the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and how it might affect 
>> ICANN policies that were reached through consensus.
>> I am writing to you all to find out of this is something which your 
>> community might be interested in.
>> As we are currently finalising schedules, it would be helpful to find out 
>> your community's views ASAP.
>> Warmest regards,
>> Olivier
>> --
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>