Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

PIR slams brakes on “UDRP for copyright”

Kevin Murphy, February 24, 2017, 09:23:39 (UTC), Domain Policy

Public Interest Registry has “paused” its plan to allow copyright owners to seize .org domains used for piracy.
In a statement last night, PIR said the plans were being shelved in response to publicly expressed concerns.
The Systemic Copyright Infringement Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy was an in-house development, but had made its way into the Domain Name Association’s recently revealed “healthy practices” document, where it known as Copyright ADRP.
The process was to be modeled on UDRP and similarly priced, with Forum providing arbitration services. The key difference was that instead of trademark infringement in the domain, it dealt with copyright infringement on the associated web site.
PIR general counsel Liz Finberg had told us the standard for losing a domain would be “clear and convincing evidence” of “pervasive and systemic copyright infringement”.
Losers would either have their domain suspended or, like UDRP, seized by the complainant.
The system seemed to be tailor-made to give PIR a way to get thepiratebay.org taken down without violating the owner’s due process rights.
But the the announcement of Copyright ADRP drew an angry response from groups representing domain investors and free speech rights.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation said the system would be captured by the music and movie industries, and compared it to the failed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the US.
The Internet Commerce Association warned that privatized take-down policies at registries opened the door for ICANN to be circumvented when IP interests don’t get what they want from the multi-stakeholder process.
I understand that members of ICANN’s Non-Contracted Parties House was on the verge of formally requesting PIR pause the program pending a wider consultation.
Some or all of these concerns appear to have hit home, with PIR issuing the following brief statement last night:

Over the past year, Public Interest Registry has been developing a highly focused policy that addresses systemic, large scale copyright infringement – the ”Systemic Copyright Infringement Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy” or SCDRP.
Given certain concerns that have been recently raised in the public domain, Public Interest Registry is pausing its SCDRP development process to reflect on those concerns and consider forward steps. We will hold any further development of the SCDRP until further notice.

SCDRP was described in general terms in the DNA’s latest Healthy Domains Initiative proposals, but PIR is the only registry to so far publicly express an interest in implementing such a measure.
Copyright ADRP may not be dead yet, but its future does not look bright.

UPDATE: This post was updated 2/26 to clarify that it was only “some members” of the NCPH that were intending to protest the Copyright ADRP.



Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments (4)

  1. John says:

    F*ck you, PIR. Shame on you for even considering a system that deprives due process.
    I won’t forget that when renewing my .orgs. I’ll be sure now to let more marginal ones go.
    This is as bad as civil forfeiture. Go to hell, .org and PIR.
    It’s SO ANTI-AMERICAN to steal assets like this.
    Again, F*CK YOU , PIR !

    • I won’t forget that when renewing my .orgs. I’ll be sure now to let more marginal ones go.

      That’s a good idea. I think I too will keep this in mind at reg renewal time. Let those marginals go…

  2. Greg Shatan says:

    I participated in the Non-Contracted Parties House Intersessional meeting where this point was raised. To be clear, the GNSO Non-Contracted Parties House was not “on the verge of formally requesting PIR pause the program pending a wider consultation.” Some members of some constituencies were critical of the proposed Copyright DRP, while others were supportive. Many of the participants were simply unaware of the proposal and expressed no opinion. In a word, the discussion was inconclusive.
    I don’t recall any mention of a “formal request” (or even an informal request), and I’m certain that the NCPH was not “on the verge” of making any such request.
    Perhaps some participants would like to create the impression that the NCPH was opposed, as a body, to the Copyright DRP. That was absolutely not the case, nor could it be inferred or projected from any of the discussions at the meeting. Unlike others (including your source, I suspect) I’ll be more circumspect and I won’t speculate on the result if such a request had been “formally” considered.

Add Your Comment