[gtld-council] Re: PDP Dec 05: Updated Work Program

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robin

Thank you for your note -- I have read Bruce's posting in response  
and wished to add my own views as you've addressed your email to me.
Firstly, to put the distributed document into context.  I only sent  
the principles, proposed recommendations and implementation  
guidelines to the list because we are seeking impact statements (by 7  
June) from all affected constituencies on the top line statements  
which  have been the subject of nearly eighteen months consultation  
and negotiation.  To read the context of the recommendations, you  
need to refer to the posted draft Final Report -- an updated full  
version will be released shortly.  However, now is the time to  
articulate your arguments and those of your constituency into an  
impact statement which can be considered along with all inputs from  
other constituencies.
Secondly, as Bruce says, this work is in draft and ongoing input will  
continue to be sought from ICANN's other Supporting Organisations and  
Advisory Committees.
Thirdly, I noticed that you are proposing to have an NCUC forum on  
new TLDs at the San Juan meeting.  I would have thought that is a  
perfect opportunity to air your views to a wider audience and to come  
up with proposed alternative language to that which has already been  
drafted.
Finally, this is a very complicated process which has involved the  
advice of many professionals -- legal, financial, business and  
advocates from many different quarters.  The finalisation of the  
policies for the introduction of domain names and the formalisation  
of the implementation plan to reflect those policies is the subject  
of detailed internal work involving a wide range of stakeholders and  
experts.  Nothing is being "swept under the rug" and our ongoing  
outreach efforts have been further strengthened by the recent release  
of the new TLDs FAQ and widespread press coverage on the the new TLDs  
process, the main aim of which is to encourage discussion and  
participation.
I urge you to put together alternate language and proposals where you  
have them and, as I said to Mawaki several months ago, continue the  
much harder work of negotiating with other constituencies to convince  
them that your position is the one which should be adopted.
Kind regards and, of course, do ask for any further assistance if you  
need it.
LIz
.....................................................
Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob




On 21 May 2007, at 00:24, Robin Gross wrote:

> Liz,
>
> I'm troubled by the continued lack of attention given to the free  
> expression concerns in this policy development process.    This  
> policy still expands trademark rights beyond what trademark law  
> grants and it attempts to regulate non-commercial speech as if it  
> were commercial speech.  Trademark rules do regulate non-commercial  
> speech, so the prominence given to that special interest in this  
> policy is not in conformity with law.   This policy not only  
> violates international legal standards about intellectual property  
> rights, it would also not withstand a Free Expression challenge in  
> the US and many other national jurisdictions.   We need to hear  
> from legal experts about how this policy deviates from  
> international law before we go any further.
> A few thoughts on the last draft recommendations:
>
> Recommendation #3 still privileges trademark holders against non- 
> commercial speakers by giving them an advantage as a "prior third  
> party".   Speakers who want to be critical of a trademark should  
> have just as much right and opportunity as those who have  
> registered the words.
> Recommendation #6 continues to impose 'polite dinner manners' on  
> everyone since the strings can't be contrary to morality or public  
> order.  It will be impossible for controversial ideas to become  
> included in new gtlds under #6.   Its deeply troubling that the  
> recommendation makes no mention of the fundamental freedom of  
> expression guarantees in article 19 of UDHR, while it cites the  
> UDHR in order to impose politeness on everyone.   So no new gtlds  
> can be offensive, under ICANN's interpretation of UDHR.
> Under Rec. #8, any opposition from any sector of the world would  
> prevent the approval of the domain.  How is this going to open-up  
> the process?   Why should everyone in the world have to agree  
> before there can be a new domain?   This is also where an objection  
> from the catholic church can prevent a domain from being issued.    
> This is a policy of censorship.
> Rec. #9 does not explain how public policy and morality issues can  
> be translated into objective and measurable criteria that is known  
> in advance.   Who's public policy goals?   Who's standard of morality?
> Rec. #11 is where ICANN staff will be charged with the first cut at  
> deciding who is the appropriate sponsor for an idea and which ideas  
> are contrary to public policy and morality.    What criteria will  
> the staff use in evaluating applications for .god?
> These recommendations remain entirely unworkable from a practical  
> standpoint.   And they will create an enormous workload and legal  
> liability for ICANN for its determinations.
> These recommendations have to be reformed, or we will impose a  
> terrible policy of censorship on the entire world.
> At the very least, we need to receive input from qualified outside  
> legal experts on many of the important issues that are being swept  
> under the rug.   This policy is too important to rush it through  
> before most of the world even knows it is in development.
> Robin
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Updated Work Program
> Date:     Sat, 12 May 2007 09:31:09 +0200
> From:     Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> To:     gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues
>
> The work of the GNSO Committee on new TLDs has been continuing  
> since the Lisbon meeting most notably with redrafting the Final  
> Report to include all the Lisbon inputs; completing the work of the  
> RN and PRO WGs and maintaining the internal implementation planning  
> that ICANN staff have been involved with for many months.   
> Particular work has been done on dispute resolution models to deal  
> with contention between applicants and to developing objection  
> resolution models where there are objections to an application or  
> applicant.
> In terms of the next steps for the work of the Committee, an  
> updated work plan is set out below.
> 1.  Please read the attached simplified document which sets out the  
> Principles, proposed Recommendations and Implementation Guidelines  
> and prepare for each of your Constituencies an "impact statement"  
> which addresses the following guidelines.  Note that it includes  
> reference to the GAC Principles as well as to ICANN's Mission and  
> Core Values.
> 2.  Refer to Section 11 of the GNSO Policy Development Bylaws which  
> talks about the impact on constituencies of the proposed policy  
> recommendations (http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/ 
> bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA).  The Council Report to the Board needs  
> to include the following: /The Staff Manager will be present at the  
> final meeting of the Council, and will have five (5) calendar days  
> after the meeting to incorporate the views of the Council into a  
> report to be submitted to the Board (the "Board Report"). The Board  
> Report must contain at least the following:/
> /a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of  
> the Council;/
> /b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of  
> all positions held by Council members. Each statement should  
> clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii)  
> the constituency(ies) that held the position;/
> /c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency,  
> including any financial impact on the constituency;/
> /d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be  
> necessary to implement the policy;/
> /e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be  
> accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i)  
> qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential  
> conflicts of interest;/
> /f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and/
>
> /g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy  
> issue, including the all opinions expressed during such  
> deliberation, accompanied by a description of who expressed such  
> opinions./
>
> 3.  A meeting of the GNSO Committee is proposed for 7 June to  
> review the proposed recommendations  for the Final  Report.
> 4.  The Final Report to the Council will be completed after the San  
> Juan meeting to enable the Chairs of the Reserved Names Working  
> Group and the Protecting the Rights of Others Working Group to  
> present their Final Reports to the Committee on Saturday 23 June.
> 5.  Preparations are underway for the 24 June GNSO GAC session at  
> which we will have another information exchange with GAC members  
> about how their principles have been reflected in Committee's output.
> 6. Schedule a Council teleconference after the San Juan meeting to  
> formally vote on the Recommendations in the Final Report.
> Of course, any questions or clarifications, please ask.
>
> Kind regards.
>
> Liz
> .....................................................
>
> Liz Williams
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN - Brussels
> +32 2 234 7874 tel
> +32 2 234 7848 fax
> +32 497 07 4243 mob