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

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

Robin,

I would like to make three points that I believe are fundamental to your
concerns: 1) the Dec05 PDP is not finished yet; 2) the RN-WG did
considerable work on the topic of controversial names and the RN-WG
final report should be available shortly; 3) the PRO-WG worked on the
topic of protecting rights of others and I expect that their final
recommendations should be forthcoming in the next week or two.

Regarding the first point, I would like to think that we have reached
positions in the New gTLD Committee on the majority of the issues that
most of us can support, but there is at least one major exception where
I personally believe considerable work is still needed: new gTLD string
challenge processes.  I would anticipate that much of the remaining work
we have to do will focus on this area.

Regarding the second point, it is my opinion that the recommendations
made by the RN-WG regarding controversial names form a reasonable
approach for dealing with the many conflicting views on this topic.  The
next key step as I see it is to debate the recommendations in the full
New gTLD Committee and ultimately the Council with the goal of arriving
at a position that most, if not all of us, can support.

Similarly, with regard to the PRO-WG, I would hope that some
recommendations for consideration will be made for all of us to consider
further.

In brief terms, it seems to me that the recommendations you are most
concerned about are still works in progress and not final products. 

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: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 6:25 PM
> To: Liz Williams; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Milton Mueller
> Subject: [gtld-council] RE: PDP Dec 05: Updated Work Program 
> 
> 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.ht
> m#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
>