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

["Frank March" <Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Without wishing to seem pedantic, the GAC did not participate in the
Rec6WG. As I was at pains to point out on a number of occasions, some
GAC members including myself were part of the group but not able to
speak on behalf of the GAC.  I would like to think that the overall
direction of the report would have strong GAC support but this has not
been tested.
 
Because of the timing issues of getting the report ready in time for the
Council retreat, it was never proposed that the report be taken formally
to the GAC for discussion or endorsement.  My view is that it it is the
Board's response to the report and the outcomes therefrom that would
engage the GAC, not the report itself.
 
Given that the issues raised are still 'live' and the work is carrying
on it would certainly be possible to have a discussion in Cartagena.  I
have a feeling however that endorsement of the report from the GAC would
be difficult to achieve.  It might well be considered by some members
not to be an appropriate action for the GAC to take.
 
Best wishes, Frank
 

----

Frank March

Senior Specialist Advisor

Communications and IT Policy

Ministry of Economic Development

33 Bowen Street, PO Box 1473

WELLINGTON, New Zealand

Mobile: (+64) 021 494165

 


________________________________

        From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
        Sent: Monday, 29 November 2010 4:48 a.m.
        To: Antony Van Couvering; soac-mapo
        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

         

         


newzealand.govt.nz - connecting you to New Zealand central & local government 
services

Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the 
Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with 
it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you 
are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the 
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and 
that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the 
message and any attachment from your computer.