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

["Mary Wong" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I was struck by the final sentence of the paragaphs Antony quoted, from
PDT's letter, i.e. "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."
 
I understand that the government participants in this group may not
have had the authority to speak or commit on behalf of their respective
governments. Given, however, that they brought a perspective to the
group's discussions that can be described at least as representative of
broad governmental concerns, are there ways that the Rec 6 CWG can work
with the GAC, before the conclusion of the Cartagena meeting, to obtain
at the very least a general endorsement of our work?
 
It seems to me that it would be a huge step backward if the GAC - and
thus by encouragement ICANN - were to ignore this group's
recommendations and engage directly with the Board without openly
considering our proposals.
 
Cheers
Mary 

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
To:Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, soac-mapo
<soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 11/28/2010 11:19 AM
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re:
morality issues

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

 

 


As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with
the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of
New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have
changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law,
please visit law.unh.edu