[Chapter-delegates] Tomorrow Hearing on SOPA in U.S. House of Representatives

Thu Nov 17 07:50:54 PST 2011

Great to read this, Markus, thanks. I understand we need to act quickly.

I also understand the issue might be of more than just "some concern",
but ISOC is of course not known for letting challenges like this unattended.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 11/17/2011 12:00 PM, kummer at isoc.org wrote:
> Dear Carlos,
> 
>  
> 
> This is indeed an issue of some concern. We have been approached to
> endorse similar letters, but decided instead to develop a separate
> paper, as we think we might have more impact that way.
> 
>  
> 
> Our position on DNS filtering is explained in the paper mentioned by Dan
> below. This will be the basis for our position on SOPA and of course we
> will consult before issuing any new paper.
> 
>  
> 
> My apologies to Marcin, for not replying to similar questions he raised
> earlier. Normally we would have attended the Hearing in the House of
> Representatives. However, this week we had no public policy staff member
> available to do so.
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Markus
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, 17 November, 2011 13:47
> To: "Dan York" <york at isoc.org>
> Cc: "Chapter Delegates" <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Tomorrow Hearing on SOPA in U.S. House
> of Representatives
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> The APC people are endorsing the letter below, together with a growing
> number of NGOs and movements worldwide. I wonder if ISOC global and/or
> the chapters could do the same?
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> Carlos A. Afonso
> ISOC BR
> 
> ========
> The Letter:
> Re: H.R.
> 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act
> 
> Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers,
> 
> As press freedom and human rights advocates, we write to express our
> deep concern with H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). While
> this is a domestic bill, there are several provisions within SOPA that
> would have serious implications for international civil and human rights
> which raise concerns about how the United States is approaching global
> internet governance. The United States has long been a strong advocate
> for the protection and promotion of an open Internet. However, by
> institutionalizing the use of internet censorship tools to enforce
> domestic law in the United States creates a paradox that undermines its
> moral authority to criticize repressive regimes. We urge the United
> States to uphold its proclaimed responsibility as a leader in internet
> freedom and reject bills that will censor and fragment the web.
> 
> Through SOPA, the United States is attempting to dominate a shared
> global resource. Building a nationwide firewall and creating barriers
> for international website and service operators makes a powerful
> statement that the United States is not interested in participating in a
> global information infrastructure.
> Instead, the United States would be creating the very barriers that
> restrict the free flow of information that it has vigorously challenged
> abroad. By imposing technical changes to the open internet while eroding
> due process, SOPA introduces a deeply concerning degree of legal
> uncertainty into the internet economy, particularly for businesses and
> users internationally. Business cannot be conducted online when
> international users and businesses do not have faith that their access
> to payments, domain names, and advertising will be available, raising
> challenges to economic development and innovation.
> 
> This is as unacceptable to the international community as it would be if
> a foreign country were to impose similar measures on the United States.
> 
> The provisions in SOPA on DNS filtering in particular will have severe
> consequences worldwide. In China, DNS filtering contributes to the Great
> Firewall that prevents citizens from accessing websites or services that
> have been censored by the Chinese government. By instituting this
> practice in the United States, SOPA sends an unequivocal message to
> other nations that it is acceptable to censor speech on the global
> Internet. Additionally, Internet engineers have argued in response to
> the Protect IP Act, DNS filtering would break the internet into separate
> regional networks. Worse still, the circumvention technology that can be
> used to access information under repressive Internet regimes would be
> outlawed under SOPA, the very same technology whose development is
> funded by the State Department.
> 
> SOPA puts the interests of rightsholders ahead of the rights of society.
> SOPA would require that web services, in order to avoid complaints and
> lawsuits, take “deliberate actions” to prevent the possibility of
> infringement from taking place on their site, pressuring private
> companies to monitor the actions of innocent users. Not only will this
> effectively moot the safe harbor protection provided in the Digital
> Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), but the proposed legislation would
> disproportionally affect small online communities who lack the capacity
> to represent their users in legal battles. Wrongly accused websites
> would suffer immediate losses as payment systems and ad networks would
> be required to comply with a demand to block or cease doing business
> with the site pending receipt of a legal counter-notice. Even then, it
> would still be at the discretion of these entities to reinstate service
> to the website regardless of the merits of an alleged rightsholder’s
> claim, robbing online companies of a stable business environment and
> creating a climate where free speech is subject to the whims of private
> actors.
> 
> Censoring the internet is the wrong approach to protecting any sectoral
> interest in business. By adopting SOPA, the United States would lose its
> position as a global leader in supporting a free and open Internet for
> public good.
> 
> The international civil and human rights community urges Congress to
> reject the Stop Online Piracy Act.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Access
> Bits of Freedom (The Netherlands)
> Center for Internet and Society (India)
> Communication Is Your Right!
> Consumers International
> Digital Rights Ireland
> FGV (Brazil)
> Free Press
> May First/People Link
> MobileActive Corp
> Virtual Activism ...
> 
> 
> 
> ========
> 
> On 11/16/2011 03:26 PM, Dan York wrote:
>> Marcin,
>>
>>> What's ISOC position in this?
>>
>>
>> I'm not on the public policy side of ISOC and therefore can't give an
> official "position" on SOPA, but I would note that in response earlier
> this year to the U.S. Senate version of the SOPA bill (called the
> "PROTECT-IP Act"), the Internet Society published this whitepaper
> outlining in very clear terms why the technique of DNS Filtering would
> not work and would be dangerous to the Internet infrastructure:
>>
>> http://www.isoc.org/internet/issues/dns-filtering.shtml
>>
>> (PDF download links are at the bottom of that page)
>>
>> As a U.S. citizen, I have personally emailed the PDF of that
> whitepaper to my senators and representatives along with my personal
> comments. I have also been passing that link along through social
> networks so that people have some way to learn more about the technical
> issues behind the mechanisms proposed in SOPA and PROTECT-IP.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dan
>>
>> --
>> Dan York
>> Senior Content Strategist, Internet Society
>> york at isoc.org +1-802-735-1624
>> Jabber: york at jabber.isoc.org
>> Skype: danyork http://twitter.com/danyork
>>
>> http://www.isoc.org/
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2011, at 3:03 PM, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
>>
>>> http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_11162011.html
>>>
>>> Witness List
>>> Maria Pallante
>>> Register of Copyrights
>>> U.S. Library of Congress
>>>
>>> John Clark
>>> Chief Security Officer and VP of Global Security
>>> Pfizer
>>>
>>> Michael O'Leary
>>> Senior Executive Vice President
>>> Global Policy and External Affairs
>>> MPAA
>>>
>>> Linda Kirkpatrick
>>> Group Head
>>> Customer Performance Integrity
>>> MasterCard
>>>
>>> Katherine Oyama
>>> Policy Counsel
>>> Google
>>>
>>> Paul Almeida
>>> President
>>> Dept. of Professional Employees
>>> AFL-CIO
>>>
>>> What's ISOC position in this?
>>> What does it take to be invited to a hearing?
>>>
>>> //Marcin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
> 