Complementing my prior email, the idea from ICANN security team (or at least the speaker) is ccTLDs could have a kind of "model clause·" in our service agreements...
The argument is based on this document: Registrar Accreditation Agreement of 2013. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en Please see the paragraph 3.18.
Certainly, in the
LACTLD community present in Foz do Iguazu this idea was
rejected, specially thinking the fact that most of us have the
same legal system heritage, civil law. So, most of us (probabbly
all of us) need a court order to act, and notice and take down
is not an option.
And is well known for us we are not binding by contracts with ICANN in this matters... (I believe...)
Regards
Margarita
Margarita Valdés Cortés, MBM-UAI Legal and Business Manager NIC Chile - Universidad de Chile www.nic.cl +56229407700
Yes, 1 + do Chris and Katrina... To let this window open would led us to a dangerous and slippery slope...
best
demi
On 15/06/17 08:50, Katrina Sataki wrote:
The delicate point is, that ICANN security team will be happy if this system, "notice and take down" were aplicable for the all ccTLDs.And I want world peace and 100 million EUR. As far as I can tell, neither of us will be happy any time soon.
In any case, copyright infringement is not a question of security and resilience. So, this is a broader issue indeed.
Agree with Chris, this requires a discussion - any attempts to treat ccTLDs as if they were gTLDs should be addressed properly.
If any ccTLD wants to join the battle against bad guys, they are welcome to cooperate with ICANN security people or any other team of security specialists, add any clauses to their policies and take down any number of 'bad' domain names. But that it the choice each ccTLD should make on their own.
Kind regards,
]{atrina
El 15-06-2017, a las 05:58, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> escribió:_______________________________________________
From the perspective of assisting our member (.CR), this is the right approach (i.e. do nothing) unless/until requested.
However, separate to that is this has been promulgated widely with publicity, and that publicity raised the issue of an apparent attempt by diplomats in the US Foreign Service to override the fundamental basis of subsidiarity on which ccTLDs have always been based.
If this is not swiftly refuted, it becomes acceptable.
So we need to discuss this calmly - not with the aim of reacting to the specific .CR incident - but gathering facts/evidence and then making a diplomatic and firm positive statement about the regime under which ccTLDs operate.
On 15/06/17 09:49, Katrina Sataki wrote:_______________________________________________
Dear Councillors,
Got a response from .cr. Rosalia said “this issue is moving along well and we do not require any further action from the ccNSO. Thanks for your support. “
However, we have included the item for discussion during out meeting in Johannesburg.
Kind regards,
]{atrina
From: ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 11:27 AM
To: ccnso-council@icann.org
Subject: [ccnso-council] FW: [ccnso-members] Economic Specialist from a US Embassy mentioned threats to close a ccTLD - Costa Rica
Dear Councillors,
With respect to the case described below please consider the following questions:
1) Do you think the ccNSO and the ccNSO Council in particular should react to the letter (which technically is addressed to GAC and does not call for any action)?
2) If yes, how we should react – the form (e.g., a ccNSO Council statement) and the content?
While you think about the questions, I reached out to .cr to ask if they expect any reaction from us. Will let you know as soon as I receive a reply from us. As they haven’t reached out to us, it is quite possible that they do not expect us to do anything.
Kind regards,
]{atrina
From: ccnso-members-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-members-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ccnso-members-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Erick Iriarte
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 6:07 AM
To: cctldworld@icann.org <mailto:cctldworld@icann.org> ; cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org <mailto:cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org> ; ccnso-members@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>
Subject: [ccnso-members] Economic Specialist from a US Embassy mentioned threats to close a ccTLD - Costa Rica
Hi
Attached you will find the Letter send by ccTLD .cr to GAC / ICANN CEO / ICANN President Costa Rica Ministry of Commerce, Costa Rica Ministry of MICITT (ICT)
A fragment of the letter: “The representative of the United States Embassy, Mr. Kevin Ludeke, Economist Specialist, who claims to represent the interest of the US Department of Commerce, has mentioned threats to close our registry, with repeated harassment regarding our practices and operation policies and even personal negative comments directed to our Executive Director, based on no clear evidence or statistical data to support his claims as a way to pressure our organization to take down the domain name without following our current policies”a
You can get your own conclusions
Related with domain name thepiratebay.cr
Erick
Note: don’t appear (yet)
in ICANN Board Correspondence: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence
or GAC Correspondence: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Correspondence
_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council