ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


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

[ga] Legislative impacts on the UDRP: New Legislation Proposed - Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010

  • To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, imatx26@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx, icann-board@xxxxxxxxx, participate@xxxxxxxxx, rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [ga] Legislative impacts on the UDRP: New Legislation Proposed - Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010
  • From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:19:53 -0500 (GMT-05:00)

All,

  Seem that the UDRP modification considerations will likely be impacted
to some or a great degree by national policy and legislation.  One
such example see:

(June 10 & 11, 2010)
Last week, US Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut), Susan Collins
(R-Maine) and Thomas Carper (D-Delaware) introduced the Protecting
Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 (S.3480), "comprehensive
legislation to modernize, strengthen, and coordinate the security of
federal civilian and select private sector critical infrastructure
cyber networks."  If it passes, the legislation would establish an
Office of Cyber Policy in the White House and a National Center for
Cyber Security and Communications at the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).  It would also update the Federal Information Security
Management Act (FISMA) so federal agencies can move away from
generating compliance reports and toward real-time monitoring that
leads to rapid vulnerability reduction and risk reduction.  The
newly proposed US legislation would give the President emergency
powers to take certain actions to protect private networks that
support critical infrastructure if they face imminent attack or
are actively under attack.  The legislation would not allow the
President to take control of the private networks, but would grant
authority to order that a patch be applied or that the network(s)
block incoming data from certain countries.  Organizations that comply
with the order would be immune from liability that arises from the
actions they were required to take.  The legislation has raised
concerns among members of a trade group "about the unintended
consequences that would result from the [bill's] regulatory approach."
Of particular concern are the regulatory powers allotted to the
Department of Homeland Security.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/10/cyber.security/index.html
http://fcw.com/Blogs/Cybersecurity/2010/06/TechAmerica-Lieberman-Collins-Carper.aspx
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Press.MajorityNews&ContentRecord_id=227d9e1e-5056-8059-765f-2239d301fb7f
James Lewis, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, provides an analysis of the bill's strengths and weaknesses.
http://www.govinfosecurity.com/podcasts.php?podcastID=571

Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 300+k members/stakeholders and growing, 
strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 214-244-4827




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