[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society 2011 IPR activities - Building a truly open and international dialogue

Mon Jan 31 14:09:26 PST 2011

Thanks for the questions and comments, and to Alejandro for the points below.

As the Internet Society expands its activities in 2011 in the area of IPR in the online environment (see original message), we will initially start by focusing on international aspects of policy issues concerning online copyright infringement. It is not our intention, at this stage, to deal with specific trademark and patent issues. Furthermore, given the Internet Society's relationship to PIR, we consider it would not be appropriate for the Internet Society to comment on the merits or otherwise of ICANN allowing (or disallowing) new TLDs.  This is a recognition of the relationship between ISOC and PIR, and avoiding any perception of conflict of interest.  The balance in this is a dynamic one, and it is reviewed and revisited often.  As Alejandro points out, there are also ISOC Chapters involved in operating some TLDs, promoting new gTLDs, or opposing portions of the various proposals related to the new gTLDs, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to express a single monolithic ISOC view.

The Internet Society will, however, engage with policymakers and other stakeholders on issues relating to the operation of the Domain Name System which is fundamental to the ongoing operation and use of the Internet, building on our reputation for providing technically-informed policy advice.  That needs to be our core objective.  While there may be different views on one or other aspect of the new gTLD process, it is vital that whatever views come from ISOC Chapters, members or staff is technically sound.

As mentioned, ISOC’s work in the IPR field will mainly expand on the 2009-2010 membership consultation on emerging policy responses to online copyright infringement (the ISOC Copyright WG) and the work undertaken by the Internet Society on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement where members’ input has also been critical.

Let us take this opportunity to again thank all the members of our Internet Society Copyright Working Group who have generously volunteered their expertise, insights and time. They have played a critical role in enhancing and developing the Internet Society's expertise in this area. The discussion document (to be finalised) explores various emerging Internet-focused policy responses to online copyright infringement. 

As to our overall strategy, we consider that one of the Internet Society's strengths is its ability to bring stakeholders together for a constructive dialogue on Internet governance and policy issues. We intend to leverage this strength, among other things, to organise a multistakeholder workshop in partnership with WIPO. 

We look forward to continuing our engagement with Internet Society members and others on these issues.

Regards

Bill

On 2011-01-22, at 12:50 PM, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:

> Patrick, Rudi,
> 
> I think you are getting this at least partly wrong.
> 
> The way in which the ISOC-PIR relationship is built, by design and before the creation of PIR, is one that creates a signfiicant separation between both organizations in operational, business, and policy terms.
> 
> This is so in order to allow ISOC great freedom in its views about the evolution of the DNS. This structure allows ISOC to have a technically solid view, oriented to the growth of an open Internet, without being consumed or weighted by caring for the very small portion of the domain-name market that is PIR's business.
> 
> PIR with .org is well aligned with ISOC's mission (again, by design and because the right incentives are in place and good compliance with all parties' fiduciary duties is under constant vigilance) and is sustainable in time cycles that again do not mark ISOC's positions on the DNS and the domain-name market.
> 
> We may wish to have stronger or less intrusive, more frequent or less, etc. guidance from ISOC, but the characterization must be right, in the first place.
> 
> We also need to note that the ways members and chapters of ISOC work in the domain-name marketplace are extremely varied. Some members - Patrick even - are or have been involved in executing or supporting strategies for new gTLD proponents. Many are involved in ccTLD management or advising, many are attorneys fighting out domain-name disputes, some of the organizational members are registries or registrars, and so on. So we would have to be extremely prudent in imposing any central views, don't you think?
> 
> What we do, and have to do more intensely if needed, is to have a more lively debate about these issues and extract from that the central guidance some of you/us seem to think necessary. But mind you, that won't be easy and you know it. As much as Tom, for example, can come out in defense of city-denominated-gTLDs, we will find principled advocates of the opposite, those of us who question the scalability of that model, the difficulties of resolving conflicts about some of the city names, etc., and also further out those who are opposed to any growth or officialization of geographical denominations in the DNS.
> 
> So, on with the debates, esp. if there's something to be said or learned that is not already out there in the ICANN and other fora.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Alejandro Pisanty
> 
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
>     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> 
> Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732
> 
> * Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> * LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> * Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> * Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> 
> * Ven a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org.mx, ISOC http://www.isoc.org
> *Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> 
> 
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Rudi Vansnick wrote:
> 
>> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:09:58 +0100
>> From: Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>> To: Patrick Vande Walle <patrick at vande-walle.eu>
>> Cc: ISOC Delegates Chapter <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society 2011 IPR activities	-
>>    	Building a truly open and international dialogue
>> 
>> Op 22-jan-2011 3, om 10:59 heeft Patrick Vande Walle het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 22 Jan 2011, at 05:36, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I think I heard at ICANN Cartagena that ISOC is precluded from advocating for new TLDs as part of its charter or its funding agreements.  I might be mistaken, but someone from ISOC said they'd look into any such prohibitions. I looked over the ISOC sight and     was unable to find anything on this.
>>> 
>>> If that is the case, we have  problem. On the one hand, chapters go out and express positions that HQ cannot/will not support. It seems that HQ needs to shut up more often than not because it needs PIR money. Not sure this is economic censorsorhip or some kind of blackmail, but anyway ISOC HQ is prevented to express positions on certain issues.
>>> 
>>> Should the chapters shut up to protect HQ's financial interests ?  Frankly, this is uncomfortable for both sides. The deafening silence from ISOC on the new gTLD TLM issues are an embarassment to chapters,
>>> and the positions of the chapters are an embarassment to ISOC.  Are we growing apart ?
>>> 
>>>> And Eric, be careful not to generalize about TLDs. City-TLDs developed as public interest digital infrastructure should not be considered a significant concern to IP stakeholders.  See the report from the IGF Vilnius entitled City-TLD Governance and Best Practices for more on this.
>>> 
>>> Any way, even within the traditional trademark business, TM owners are expected to take actions to protect their TM. Defensive registrations are part of that. Why these guys want a different more favourable in the TLD environment that they get elsewhere is
>>> 
>>> RFC 1591, on which the whole ICANN circus is based, makes it clear that this is outside the scope of DNS administration. Again, one would expect ISOC, as the keeper of the RFC orthodoxy, to remind this to all parties.
>>> 4. Rights to Names
>>> 
>>>   1) Names and Trademarks
>>> 
>>>      In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the
>>>      rights to a particular name, the registration authority shall have
>>>      no role or responsibility other than to provide the contact
>>>      information to both parties.
>>> 
>>>      The registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark
>>>      status.  It is up to the requestor to be sure he is not violating
>>>      anyone else's Trademark.
>>> 
>>> Patrick
>> I fully agree with Patrick's statement. TM are already a privilege a citizen can not dispose of. And as stated, DNS has no legal rights to judge ownership of an intellectual property. If so, it's clear that a citizen could also claim ownership of his/her intellectual property being the content published on his/her website.
>> 
>> Rudi Vansnick
>> 
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates