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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

But is the GAC accepting the Rec6 WG's work and standing behind it as something 
to be considered at the level of GAC advice? I do have the feeling they are 
standing away from it.

Likewise, has the GNSO Council endorsed the work or has it orphaned it as 
somehow suspect by being the result of a cross community effort it is afraid 
will usurp its role in policy making.

Only ALAC has endorsed it as far as I know, and unfortunately, ALAC has no 
authority to make policy nor to have its views treated as advice that needs to 
be dealt with seriously. In fact I am wondering whether the ALAC remembered to 
include a sentence at the end of its motion of support asking for the board to 
acknowledge and repsond to its message - without which the board does not even 
need to acknowledge and respond.

a.

On 28 Nov 2010, at 11:35, Mary Wong wrote:

> 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 LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected 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