RE: [gnso-rn-wg] FW: Draft GAC principles

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Victoria,

In the case of China, the control is accomplished through ISPs owned by
the government.  I cannot speak to the Yahoo! case in France.  But
registry agreements are with ICANN, not governments.  I am not a
technical person either, but I know that as registry there is no way we
could prevent a name from being used in any given country; it's
basically all or none.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vmcevedy [mailto:vmcevedy@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:35 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; GNSO RN WG
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] FW: Draft GAC principles
> 
> Thanks for your comments Chuck, which are appreciated --I'll 
> try to fix those refs. I'm by no means a technical person but 
> I understand that in the Yahoo litigation the French Court 
> ordered a worldwide site to be rendered unavailable in France 
> (on pain of very large daily fines and the technology was 
> found) and I believe that similar orders have been made in 
> other cases --whether that can extend to the name itself --I 
> don't know. If China can firewall most of the net and prevent 
> accesss, I wonder if the technology does exist. I really 
> don't know. Will amend and resend report.  Thanks again for 
> your comments though. Victoria
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "vmcevedy" <vmcevedy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "GNSO RN WG" 
> <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 6:17 PM
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] FW: Draft GAC principles
> 
> 
> > Thanks Victoria.  I compliment you on a well articulated 
> statement and
> > personally think you make some very good arguments.
> >
> > I have just a few comments:
> >
> > First, the next to last paragraph says, "If the proposed name would
> > infringe a law in a nation state and that nation state 
> objects to the
> > application, then that application should be granted with conditions
> > restricting or preventing its use in the objecting nation 
> state and any
> > supporting nation states.   This prevents one State 
> imposing its laws on
> > the others."  I believe this is impossible from the point 
> of view of the
> > registry operator because the Internet is global.
> >
> > Second, the second paragraph reads, "It is my view that the 
> first and
> > general Principle is fundamentally flawed insofar as it 
> fails to include
> > any reference to Freedom of Expression."  I assume you are 
> referring to
> > the first GAC principle.  I think it would be better to word it
> > something like this: "It is my view that the belief that 
> (insert a brief
> > summary of the principle) is fundamentally flawed insofar 
> as it fails to
> > include any reference to Freedom of Expression."
> >
> > The 4th and 5th paragraphs also refer to the draft principles:
> >
> > "Given that one of GACs overall policy objectives is Freedom of
> > Expression, it is astonishing that it is not mentioned 
> anywhere in the
> > Principles -not even once.
> >
> > This is all the more extraordinary given the Draft 
> Principles  expressly
> > address the concerns of Rights' claimants.   "
> >
> > Here are some ways I believe these could be reworded to 
> avoid reference
> > to the GAC principles and I think still make your point:
> >
> > "Given that one of GACs overall policy objectives is Freedom of
> > Expression, I believe it is critical that the GAC include 
> this objective
> > in any statement it makes regarding the introduction of new 
> gTLDs.  This
> > is all the more important if the GAC is concerned about claimant
> > rights."
> >
> > I apologize for even having to go through this exercise 
> because it is a
> > very poor use of our time, but I believe that it is more 
> important for
> > our work that we be able to make our case effectively than 
> to turn our
> > WG into a battleground.
> >
> > Chuck Gomes
> >
> > "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> > which it is addressed, and may contain information that is 
> privileged,
> > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> > unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly 
> prohibited. If
> > you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> > immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: vmcevedy [mailto:vmcevedy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:25 PM
> >> To: Gomes, Chuck; GNSO RN WG
> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] FW: Draft GAC principles
> >>
> >> Attached in .doc. I've amended the references but its
> >> difficult as I am discussing a particular principle. I hope
> >> this is a fix. Victoria
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: "vmcevedy" <vmcevedy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "GNSO RN WG"
> >> <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:08 PM
> >> Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] FW: Draft GAC principles
> >>
> >>
> >> Victoria,
> >>
> >> I could not open the attachment. If you did make specific
> >> reference to a
> >> GAC principle or to the GAC draft document at all, please make the
> >> references general instead.
> >>
> >> Chuck Gomes
> >>
> >> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or 
> entity to
> >> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is 
> privileged,
> >> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> >> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
> >> prohibited. If
> >> you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> >> immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: vmcevedy [mailto:vmcevedy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:59 PM
> >> > To: Gomes, Chuck; GNSO RN WG
> >> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] FW: Draft GAC principles
> >> >
> >> > Please find attached a Minority Report to the Controversial
> >> > Names Report.
> >> > Please let me know if I need to amend the references to the
> >> > enumerated principle 2.1 somehow.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Victoria McEvedy
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > To: "GNSO RN WG" <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 3:21 PM
> >> > Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] FW: Draft GAC principles
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > Regarding use of the draft GAC document regarding new
> >> > gTLDs, please read
> >> > > the following messages from Denise Michel, ICANN's 
> Vice President,
> >> > > Policy Development.
> >> > >
> >> > > Please note that GAC rules forbid the public posting of any
> >> > draft GAC
> >> > > document.  Therefore, the draft GAC document regarding the
> >> > introduction
> >> > > of new gTLDs must not be included in any of the RN-WG
> >> > subgroup reports
> >> > > or in the full WG report.  Please delete the draft GAC
> >> > report if it is
> >> > > included in your subgroup report. In cases where there is
> >> currently
> >> > > reference to the draft GAC report, please reword any
> >> > reference to the
> >> > > draft GAC report and instead do something like the following as
> >> > > appropriate: "refer to concerns that have been 
> expressed by some
> >> > > governments."
> >> > >
> >> > > If you have any questions on this, please feel free to ask,
> >> > but I would
> >> > > like to strongly suggest that we don't spend time on
> >> > further debate of
> >> > > this issue.  Whether you agree or disagree with the GAC's
> >> > rule, if we
> >> > > expect to be able to work constructively with the GAC, I
> >> > believe it is
> >> > > critical that we respect their rules.  I recognize that
> >> > several of you
> >> > > disagree with this, but I encourage you to deal with your
> >> > concerns in
> >> > > this regard in other forums rather than the RN-WG.
> >> > >
> >> > > I do want to clarify though that I personally do not
> >> > believe that this
> >> > > should limit our discussion of issues that are included in
> >> > the draft GAC
> >> > > report to the extent that those issues are relevant to our
> >> > SoW regarding
> >> > > reserved names.  Our report would not be complete if we
> >> > left out issues
> >> > > that we know exist.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Chuck Gomes
> >> > >
> >> > > "This message is intended for the use of the individual
> >> or entity to
> >> > > which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
> >> > privileged,
> >> > > confidential and exempt from disclosure under 
> applicable law. Any
> >> > > unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
> >> > prohibited. If
> >> > > you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> >> > > immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
> >> > >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Denise Michel [mailto:denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx]
> >> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:36 AM
> >> > > To: Gomes, Chuck; Timothy Denton
> >> > > Subject: Re: Draft GAC principles
> >> > >
> >> > > I understand the use/posting of draft GAC principles may be
> >> > an issue for
> >> > > the RN WG (or one of its subgroups).  Feel free to share
> >> > the following
> >> > > email I sent to the GAC Chair regarding this, or just
> >> > provide WG members
> >> > > with guidance on the appropriate treatment of GAC draft text.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks.
> >> > > Denise
> >> > >
> >> > > Denise Michel
> >> > > Vice President, Policy Development
> >> > > ICANN   www.icann.org
> >> > > denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx
> >> > > +32-2-234-7876 office
> >> > > +1-408-429-3072 mobile
> >> > > +32-2-234-7848 fax
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Denise Michel wrote:
> >> > >> Suzanne Sene brought to my attention that the GAC's 
> draft public
> >> > >> policy principles for new TLDs were included in the annex
> >> > of a working
> >> > >
> >> > >> draft of the GNSO's new TLD report, which was posted on
> >> one of the
> >> > >> GNSO's web pages used for working documents.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I apologize for this error.  The GAC draft text, 
> which had been
> >> > >> included in "Annex Three" of the draft report, has been
> >> > deleted (see
> >> > >> <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSO-PDP-Dec05-FR13-FEB07.htm>).
> >> > >>
> >> > >> To ensure that draft GAC text is not publicly posted by
> >> > ICANN Policy
> >> > >> staff, I have informed staff of the GAC's rules regarding
> >> > draft text,
> >> > >> and I have instituted measures which will require the 
> receipt of
> >> > >> written authorization from the GAC Chair or relevant GAC
> >> > liaison prior
> >> > >
> >> > >> to the public posting of any draft GAC text.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Additionally, it may be useful to provide GNSO members with
> >> > >> information on the GAC's operations to help ensure GNSO
> >> > members don't
> >> > >> make similar mistakes.  I believe many GNSO members 
> (as well as
> >> > >> members of other Supporting Organizations and Advisory
> >> Committees)
> >> > >> remain unaware of GAC's rules and procedures and thus do
> >> > not have the
> >> > >> necessary guidance when given draft GAC text by a GAC member.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Please let me know if I can provide any further assistance
> >> > with this.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Regards,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Denise
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Denise Michel
> >> > >> Vice President, Policy Development
> >> > >> ICANN   www.icann.org
> >> > >> denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx
> >> > >> +32-2-234-7876 office
> >> > >> +1-408-429-3072 mobile
> >> > >> +32-2-234-7848 fax
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> > 
> 
> 
>