RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Consolidated Response to Jeff & Anthony

["Brian Cute" <briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton,

 

This is ground that you have covered for quite some time but I believe you
are overstating and understating a couple of key points.  First, calling
GNSO developed policy for newTLDs "global public policy" is an
overstatement.  Like it or not, if a GSNSO developed policy ran afoul of
established national laws, any country would have the sovereign right to
prohibit its citizens from complying.  Not a happy state of affairs but a
reality we all recognize which is why we all strive to keep the Internet
(DNS) from being Balkanized.  Second, you note that the Working Group should
be mindful of GAC advice "when it comes to matters such as antitrust law or
conformity to legitimate, negotiated international treaties such as WTO
trade agreements, where they do have authority."  This is a narrow scope as
you say nothing about consumer protection or intellectual property.  The
Affirmation of Commitments recognizes "the role of the GAC with respect to
ICANN decision-making and execution of tasks and of the effective
consideration by ICANN of GAC input on the public policy aspects of the
technical coordination of the Internet DNS."

 

Also, you know quite well that for reasons of sovereignty, most countries
will not participate directly in a Working Group of a private,
not-for-profit entity such as ICANN.

 

Michael, raises an important point, if the GAC Communique stated that the
single registrant TLD model should be explore futher, then we should take
due notice of that and not disregard it.  Thankfully it appears the
discussion is already taking place on that point.

 

Brian

 

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 10:22 AM
To: Antony Van Couvering; Michael D. Palage
Cc: 'Jeff Eckhaus'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Consolidated Response to Jeff & Anthony

 

I have to agree with Anthony here. It is unproductive to drag the GAC into
our deliberations in this way. The GAC has had since 2006 to provide its
policy advice to the ICANN Board, and it developed a set of principles for
new gTLDs which was fully - some might say over-fully - taken into account
during the development of the new gTLD policy process. As a matter of fact,
as I have argued elsewhere, as representatives of _national_ governments the
GAC has no special right to make _global_ policy for the global internet -
national govts are just another interest group and that is why GAC is
confined to an advisory capacity and why govts are not allowed on the board.
Moreover, it has no authority to negotiate binding treaties and its
pronouncements need not be ratified or even reviewed by national elected
legislatures, so the GAC has a bit of a democratic deficit to contend with.
In ICANN's structure, the GNSO is the primary policy making body for new
gTLDs - and policy for new gTLDs is public policy - global public policy. We
are free to listen to the GAC's advice and in many cases it is good advice.
We should be especially mindful of GAC advice when it comes to matters such
as antitrust law or conformity to legitimate, negotiated international
treaties such as WTO trade agreements, where they do have authority. And if
national governments really want to participate in these deliberations in a
constructive way, they can and should get people into this WG and contribute
on the same status as the rest of us, rather than issuing pronouncements
from their silo. 

 

--MM

 

 

But according to you I am mistaken: we are actually acting in response to
the GAC Communique, or rather, to your interpretation of what it means.  And
if we don't like your questionnaire, then you will ask the co-chairs to
report us to the GAC.