IP Justice Publications
IP Justice Comment on Olympic Committee and Red Cross Requests to be Granted Global Exclusive Licensing Rights to Words in the DNS
The comment was filed in response to requests from the International Olympic Committee and Red Cross groups who have asked ICANN to grant them the exclusive right to use in domain names several hundred words that these groups claim are their "exclusive property". Despite their grossly exaggerated legal claims and overblown fears, these groups lobbied the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) at ICANN to put pressure upon the ICANN Board and GNSO Policy Council to create such unprecedented rights over the use of words in domain names...
IP Justice Comment on Request to ICANN from Red Cross & Olympic Committee to Ban Others’ Use of Words in Domain Names
Today I write to express my personal disappointment with the way ICANN has mis-handled this request for special rights to prohibit the use of certain words in domain names which are desired by politically powerful, but ultimately arbitrary, interests. Unfortunately, this case represents another clear example of ICANN departing from its own established policies and stated principles of bottom-up governance to demonstrate that it is not quite ready to be a legitimate global governance institution that can be trusted to manage the security and stability of the domain name system in the public interest...
Civil Society Involvement in ICANN: Strengthening Future Civil Society Influence in ICANN Policymaking
Civil Society Involvement in ICANN: Strengthening Future Civil Society Influence in ICANN Policymaking By Robin Gross (APC) September 2011 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was established in 1998 by the United States Department of Commerce to oversee a number of internet-related tasks. One of its core duties is to manage the Internet Assigned Names Authority (IANA), which allocates IP addresses to various regional assigning bodies. ICANN occupies a unique role in that it manages a global public resource (the internet’s domain name addressing space), but it shares this responsibility between businesses, governments, and civil society participants from many nations. It represents a unique blend of “multi-stakeholderism” governance: the different parties that will be impacted participate in the decision-making process, and policies are determined based on consensus. This paper investigates ICANN’s processes, the role of civil society within decision-making, and highlights lessons learned from this multi-stakeholderism experiment as well as recommendations for future similar initiatives. Download full PDF Here: http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/Civil-Society_ICANN.pdf
What does it mean for ICANN to act in the public interest?
ICANN should bake-in to its internal policy development process, consideration of the various interests and stakeholders that can together reach what can be called the 'public interest'. Consider principles that we agree help us to achieve what we think is the 'public interest,' like openness and promoting freedom and making sure the Internet enables education, communication, innovation, exploration ...
IP Justice Comments on ICANN Policy Proposal for Trademarks & New GTLDs
Statement in public forum regarding ICANN Board response to "scorecard" of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on trademark protections for new generic top-level Internet domain names. The GAC is pressuring the ICANN Board to dramatically expand the rights of trademark owners after heavy lobbying by trademark industry of governmental representatives who participate at ICANN.
San Francisco Civil Liberties Groups Comment on SF Entertainment Commission Proposal to Create Surveillance State in Local Arts Establishments
IP Justice signed comments from a number of San Francisco civil liberties organizations concerned about the draconian new proposal to turn local SF arts organizations into surveillance mechanisms for law enforcement. This proposal harms civil liberties like free expression and privacy and it will harm the local arts communities who will be forced to spy on their patrons if enacted. The comments are from PrivacyActivism, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, IP Justice, Patient Privacy Rights, the Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights, Chip Pitts of Stanford Law School, Beat the Chip, and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee