RE: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: morality issues

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

The disturbing thing about this exchange of letters is that both sides seem to 
treat this working group - which GAC participated in - as if it did not 
contribute "thoughtful proposals" to resolve the stated concerns.

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Antony Van Couvering
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 2:58 PM
To: soac-mapo
Subject: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: morality 
issues

For those not yet aware, there has been an exchange of letters between GAC and 
ICANN concerning the subject matter of this working group.

The GAC letter of Nov 22 
(http://icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush-22nov10-en.pdf) 
suggests that there be "prior review" of applications, in order to give 
applicants an "early warning" that their TLDs might raise sensitivities.  It 
does not say who should conduct these reviews, what the standards of review 
are, whether there would be any appeal, whether the determination of the 
reviewers was final, etc. etc.   The GAC letter suggests that this is important 
in view of the principle of universal resolvability, noting that to date "there 
do not appear to be controversial top level domains that have resulted in 
significant or sustained blocking by countries."  The letter does not explain 
why this is different than blocking of second-level domains by countries, which 
is a widespread practice.

The ICANN letter in response 
(http://icann.org/en/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-dryden-23nov10-en.pdf), 
sent the next day, is a compendium of how ICANN has addressed or is addressing 
outstanding issues.  The issues concerning morality and public order are saved 
for the end of the letter (pages 9 and 10), and basically say to the GAC, we 
appreciate your input, but you need to suggest a way forward rather than just 
say you're unhappy with the outcome.  Here's a couple of quotes from PDT:

"Various competing interests are involved, for example the rights of freedom of 
expression versus sensitivities associated with terms of national, cultural, 
geographic and religious significance. While freedom of expression is not 
absolute, those claiming to be offended on national, cultural, geographic or 
religious grounds do not have an automatic veto over gTLDs."

"I understand that some GAC members have expressed dissatisfaction with this 
process as it was first described in version 2 of the Guidebook.   The 
treatment of this issue in the new gTLD context, was the result of a 
well-studied and documented process which involved consultations with 
internationally recognized experts in this area.   Advice containing thoughtful 
proposals for amending the treatment of this issue that maintains the integrity 
of the policy recommendation would be welcomed.  The expression of 
dissatisfaction without a substantive proposal, does not give the Board or 
staff a toehold for considering alternative solutions.   While the report of 
the recently convened working group still does not constitute a policy 
statement as conceived in the ICANN bylaws, ICANN staff and Board are working 
to collaborate with the community to adopt many of the recommendations."

Antony