RE: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus

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

Thanks for the thoughtful replies Robin.  I added a few more thoughts
below.

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: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:23 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Bruce Tonkin; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus
> 
> Hi Chuck,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.   I'll try to answer them 
> specifically below.
> 
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> >Robin,
> >
> >Regardless of whether specific reference was made to the 
> NCUC proposal, 
> >in my recollection the topics identified by the NCUC and even the 
> >recommendations presented by the NCUC received a lot of focus.
> >
> >With regard to the second recommendation by the NCUC (Remove 
> ICANN as 
> >arbiter of global public policy.  National govts would 
> determine what 
> >is permitted in the nation in question.), I actually think that the 
> >recommendations that the RN-WG made with regard to both 
> controversial 
> >and geographic names match the NCUC recommendation quite 
> well, although 
> >I suspect they might not go as far as you like.  Also, on a more 
> >general point, the New gTLD Committee has worked very hard to avoid 
> >making ICANN "the arbiter of global public policy"; the 
> whole concept 
> >of setting up challenge processes that would be operated by 
> independent 
> >third parties is based on this goal.
> >
> This is an important difference worthy of highlighted.  When 
> NCUC expresses concern about ICANN deciding what words are 
> too controversial, 
> we are no only speaking literally about ICANN staff members.   We are 
> also talking about ICANN processes that involve third parties 
> such as expert panels.  This is still an ICANN process 
> setting the rules for adjudication and making the 
> determinations about what is too 
> controversial or who the appropriate sponsor of an idea should be.   
> These are not processes of democratically elected lawmakers 
> with any level of public accountability.

Chuck:  I don't think I have any argument with you on this.  If third
party expert panels are used, they should be given criteria to apply and
shouldn't be left to make their own subjective judgements.  That may be
tough to do but that is the reality of the subject matter.
  
> 
> So because ICANN is out-sourcing the panels to yet another 
> inappropriate forum does not address our underlying concern 
> that these issues cannot and should not be legislated on a 
> global level or by a private corporation who's mission is technical.
> 
> We are concerned that it would be impossible for groups like 
> Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch to register 
> strings like ".humanrights" in Chinese characters under the 
> recommendations we are making, since the idea of human rights 
> is offensive to the Chinese govt 
> -- indeed to many govts.   
> 
> We are concerned that under our recommendations it would be 
> impossible for activists to register ".microsoft" in order to 
> provide information about software bugs in a non-commercial 
> and entirely lawful way since we privilege trademark holders 
> with a prior right to the disadvantage of non-commercial users.
> 
> And our policy seems to forget that people have a freedom of 
> expression 
> right to be offensive and to criticize trademarks.   But these legal 
> rights are not even mentioned in these draft recommendations.

Chuck: It seems to me that it should not be too hard to fix this in the
recommendations.  
> 
> I worry that we are saying, 'don't worry about those uses, they'll be 
> dealt with in the dispute resolution proceedings down the 
> line'.   But 
> if we don't build any protection for these lawful, 
> non-commercial registrations of a domain into our policy, 
> then how ready will our dispute resolution providers be to 
> protect free expression in their judgments?
> 
> >We still have more work to do in that regard but I 
> personally think we 
> >are headed in a sound direction. Obviously, the details of those 
> >processes are critical and we need to work on them.
> >
> >Regarding Applicant Criteria ii (Applicants should be able to 
> >demonstrate their financial and operational capability), 
> much time was 
> >spent talking about this in different meetings. We talked a 
> lot about 
> >whether a full business plan should be required and I think 
> reached a 
> >compromise that is acceptable that focuses primarily on 
> financial and 
> >operational plans, rather than a full blown business plan.
> >  
> >
> Yes this is an issue that we are less concerned with than 
> before, and can basically live with this compromise.  Our 
> main concern at this stage is the freedom of expression 
> issue.  Thank you.
> 
> >Finally, an overriding goal of the RyC and I think the New gTLD 
> >Committee as a whole has been to ensure that applications 
> are evaluated 
> >on an objective basis against published criteria as the NCUC 
> recommends.
> >I have been one who has particularly pushed this goal 
> because the RyC 
> >feels very strongly about it, but I also recognize that it 
> is rarely if 
> >ever possible to avoid some level of subjectivity in complicated 
> >processes.  I just want us to do everything possible to minimize 
> >subjectivity as much as we can.
> >
> >  
> >
> It seems that we add subjectivity and arbitrariness into the 
> mix when we evaluate based on non-technical and 
> non-operational criteria.  So we increase the subjectivity 
> and the arbitrary decisions when we introduce 
> criteria like "not contrary to public policy or morality".   
> It does not 
> get more subjective and arbitrary than that.

Chuck:  No argument on this at all.  But I also would not assume that
the current wording that you quote should be the final wording of the
recommendation.  
 
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> >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: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:12 AM
> >>To: Gomes, Chuck
> >>Cc: Bruce Tonkin; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus
> >>
> >>Hi Chuck,
> >>
> >>Thanks for the response.  I remember spending about 5 
> minutes on the 
> >>NCUC proposal at the LA meeting and that is all.   And I was 
> >>trying to
> >>participate remotely at that meeting and it was almost 
> impossible to 
> >>hear anyone and have a real discussion due to technical difficulties
> >>with the teleconference.   So my 3rd point is to ask for a 
> meaningful 
> >>discussion on the NCUC proposal.
> >>
> >>Thank you,
> >>Robin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>Robin,
> >>>
> >>>I would disagree with you on your third point because as a
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>participant
> >>    
> >>
> >>>in the New gTLD Committee I recall us spending lots of time
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>considering
> >>    
> >>
> >>>the issues and recommendations the NCUC put forward. 
> Ultimately, it 
> >>>will be up to the Council to decide whether rough consensus was 
> >>>reached.  But rough consensus does not mean that everyone got 
> >>>everything they wanted; I know for a fact that that is not
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>the case for
> >>    
> >>
> >>>the RyC.  But I do believe we are moving toward a set of 
> >>>recommendations that most of us can support and that is the
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>goal.  Is there still some work to do?  Yes.
> >>    
> >>
> >>>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: Friday, May 25, 2007 5:44 AM
> >>>>To: Bruce Tonkin; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus
> >>>>
> >>>>I have not seen the majority consensus that supports this 
> >>>>controversial
> >>>>draft proposal on new gtlds.   I question this point. 
> >>>>
> >>>>I think we need to have some discussion as to whether the 
> existing 
> >>>>draft policy for new gtlds does, in fact, reflect the view of the 
> >>>>majority of
> >>>>the gtld-council.   I have had conversations with other 
> >>>>council members
> >>>>who also question the direction that this policy takes.
> >>>>
> >>>>It seems to me that we are rushing to conclude this policy 
> >>>>recommendation, perhaps for administrative reasons; but it
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>is no where
> >>    
> >>
> >>>>near a coherent policy that reflects the reality of existing 
> >>>>international law, or the reality that an ICANN process 
> could, as a 
> >>>>practical matter, decide between competing public policy goals or 
> >>>>differing views of morality.
> >>>>
> >>>>So I'd like to propose three things:
> >>>>
> >>>>1. Discuss whether the existing draft policy actually 
> reflects the 
> >>>>consensus view of the committee.
> >>>>
> >>>>2.  Accept input from neutral outside experts regarding how
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>this draft
> >>    
> >>
> >>>>policy tracks existing international legal standards for 
> trademark 
> >>>>rights and free expression rights.
> >>>>
> >>>>3.  In February, NCUC made a proposal to amend the draft policy 
> >>>>recommendation, and the draft has yet to deal with the NCUC
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>proposal
> >>    
> >>
> >>>>in any way.
> >>>> http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/drafts/022207.html
> >>>>So I respectfully request that the policy development 
> process deal 
> >>>>with, or at least explain, why these proposals are not being 
> >>>>considered.
> >>>>
> >>>>Thank you,
> >>>>Robin
> >>>>
> >>>>   
> >>>>
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>>>>I think it comes down to whether the point is seen as a 
> "friendly 
> >>>>>amendment" - ie in someway enhances the current 
> recommendation, or 
> >>>>>whether the point is essentially an argument against the
> >>>>>     
> >>>>>
> >>>>>          
> >>>>>
> >>>>recommendation
> >>>>   
> >>>>
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>>>>as a whole, or is a completely new recommendation.   The 
> >>>>>     
> >>>>>
> >>>>>          
> >>>>>
> >>>>recommendations
> >>>>   
> >>>>
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>>>>as they are drafted are intended to reflect the staff's
> >>>>>     
> >>>>>
> >>>>>          
> >>>>>
> >>>>understanding
> >>>>   
> >>>>
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>>>>of the majority.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     
> >>>>>
> >>>>>          
> >>>>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >  
> >
> 
>