RE: [soac-mapo] charter and mission

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

The participation of GAC in this discussion is the elephant in the room.
(For those of you unfamiliar with English-language idioms, it means that it is 
the big problem everyone is aware of but afraid to talk about.)

My view is that the GAC needs to be here and needs to engage in an open 
discourse on a parity basis with all the other stakeholder groups.
I will contact the relevant officials of my own government and urge them to 
join in, and perhaps others could do the same. I also think public pressure 
needs to be put on GAC; while I know all the excuses for why they think they 
“cannot” or should not participate, if they really want to have an ICANN-like 
multistakeholder governance institution those excuses fail. And if they don’t 
want multistakeholderism – if they want internet governance to be dictated on 
an intergovernmental basis – then let’s come out and say so, stop wasting 
civilians’ time, and start formal treaty negotiations and do it right.

--MM

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Caroline Greer
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:58 PM
To: avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission


Anthony and all,

I think that's a very sensible suggestion. This is what I understood to be the 
objective of this group - ie, to engage in some sort of dialogue with those GAC 
members who were interested in stepping forward, in an effort to move this 
issue along. Otherwise we are just rehashing old arguments and issues and 
flailing around a bit. [That being said, I personally have found it very useful 
to get a refresher course on the history so I don't wish to undermine any of 
the discussion that has taken place so far].

In any case, if any of us are able to draw in any GAC members, we should stress 
that this is - as I understand it - an informal discussion group only. 
Otherwise there will be some reticence on the part of the GAC to join in.

Thanks


----------------
Caroline Greer
Director of Policy
dotMobi


----- Original Message -----
From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx <owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Mary Wong <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Jul 14 16:38:01 2010
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission

I would be surprised if GAC joined this group in any substantive way; they will 
want to reserve to themselves the ability to reject anything this group comes 
up with, but without them I worry that we may be wasting our time.  GAC has 
shown no compunction about rejecting something they don't like, even while 
refusing to come up with anything to take its place.  They have effectively 
arrogated a veto power to themselves, and they will reject the output of this 
group as well if they don't like the result.

Does anyone have decent relations with the GAC to determine if they will join 
us?  They mentioned the idea positively in Brussels, in fact they complained on 
several occasions that they were not involved earlier in formulating policy.  I 
realize that including the GAC is a double-edged sword, but if we are concerned 
to produce something that doesn't meet with another flat rejection, it would 
wise to get them to participate now.  I would also say that it is the US 
government leading the objections, and therefore that is the particular player 
whose involvement we need.

Antony


On Jul 14, 2010, at 2:22 AM, Mary Wong wrote:


        Here's the thing with string and use, though - there are at least 
three, increasingly expansive, ways to look at MAPO objections (even as 
currently stated in DAGv4): just the string, the string plus user, and the 
string plus use thereof/thereafter (Bertrand mentioned this during the GAC 
meeting as well).

        For those who do not think it either wise or feasible to remove MAPO 
entirely from the new gTLD application process, are you comfortable with a 
contextual examination (even if it is a panel comprised of "eminent jurists") 
in view of ICANN's mandate?

        As Evan (I believe) noted, there is no one from the GAC in this SOAC 
group at the moment. In Brussels, they seemed at a loss as to whether and if 
they could and should come up with an alternative recommendation to the Board. 
I just don't see ICANN reversing course and agreeing to remove MAPO at this 
juncture unless the GAC pushes for it (and as Avri and Philip have said, the 
GAC may actually end up requesting something worse). That's partly why I think 
we as a group should request that the consultation papers from the "eminent 
jurists" consulted by ICANN be released to us, to figure out at least whether 
the legal/normative issues that some of us have raised on this list were 
addressed.

        Mary

        Mary W S Wong
        Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
        Franklin Pierce Law Center
        Two White Street
        Concord, NH 03301
        USA
        Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Phone: 1-603-513-5143
        Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
        Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network 
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


        >>>
                From:   "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
        To:      <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
        Date:   7/14/2010 4:47 AM
        Subject:        [soac-mapo] charter and mission


        I must say I am with Avri on this.

        Instinctively, I see the need for some ICANN-based method to block an
        objectionable name.
        National law enforcement has failed to stop Internet crime, so it is a 
poor
        alternative.

        And as said previously:
        a) the existence of a method will deter most cases of obviously 
objectionable
        TLDs, so the objection will not be needed.

        b) when it does the issue is likely to be questionable and so must be 
determined
        by a panel listening to arguments (which will address both string and 
use).

        So, isn't the DAG4 proposal about right?
        The only action then is best endeavours to have a wise panel.

        Philip








         <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>