<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<title>Message</title>
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Michael and Matthias<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Both of you are not that close to the context, and thus may not understand what is really going on here. The governments’ (USG’s, on behalf of the GAC) attempt to insert
“public interest” language into the IANA contract is an extremely hostile threat to freedom and to multistakeholder policy making. The object of the “public interest” standard is to give basically any government, or any group of governments, the ability to
object to and veto any new top level domain addition they don’t like. It also gives the trademark lobby a chance to lobby NTIA against any new domains they don’t like – even if they meet all of ICANN’s stated criteria and policies.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">ICANN’s original “morality and public order” objection process was an attempt to tie new TLD vetos to established international law. The GAC, led by an insistent US
government (and supported by such “progressive” democracies as India) rejected a law-based process and also rejected an attempt to reach a compromise consensus by participating on equal terms with civil society and the private sector in the policy making process.
What they want, instead, is the ability to unilaterally object to anything they don’t like. It could be .gay, it could be .xxx, it could be ANYTHING. That is they point. They want a blank check, they want an “I know it when I see it” kind of standard. They
don’t want to be bound by law, because they know there are international human rights standards that make it illegal for some countries to suppress expression unless it’s actually illegal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">The other source of the “public interest” standard is the trademark lobby, which really wants there to be no new gTLDs at all. Finding themselves unable to even pretend
to find consensus on that, they would like to introduce a circuit-breaker into the new gTLD approval process. They want, in other words, to add a new layer of politicization to what is supposed to be a mechanical process by which IANA simply ascertains that
a new gTLD approved by ICANN actually was approved by ICANN. Instead of that, IANA conducting a public interest test would allow all kinds of quiet, insider lobbying to go on in an attempt to block a TLD.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">Don’t be fooled. It takes more than invoking the words “public interest” to do things that are actually in the public interest. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>michael gurstein<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, March 10, 2012 5:17 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [governance] NTIA says ICANN "does not meet the requirements" for IANA renewal<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue">I think from a civil society perspective the "formal" use of the terminology of a "global public interest" is enormously important and defining, operationalizing,
and "owning" this terminology should be the primary focus of civil society involvement in the IGF going forward. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue">M</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> -----Original Message-----<br>
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
<a href="mailto:[mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org]">[mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org]</a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Matthias C. Kettemann<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, March 10, 2012 2:01 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] NTIA says ICANN "does not meet the requirements" for IANA renewal<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have done a bit of thinking and writing about what the NTIA decision tells us about Internet Governance and the multi-stakeholder approach.
<br>
<br>
In brief: Is the NTIA decision a good thing for multistakeholderbased human rights-sensitive Internet Governance?<span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">
<br>
<br>
It is, if it leads to more accountability in the next application of ICANN, which is sure to follow.<br>
It isn't, if it leads to more governmental oversight in defining the global public interest vis-a-vis the web. </span><br>
<br>
For more details, see <a href="http://goo.gl/d5GI8">http://goo.gl/d5GI8</a><br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Matthias<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 10.03.2012 22:32, schrieb Karl Auerbach: <o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>On 03/10/2012 11:12 AM, michael gurstein wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>Perhaps the next IGF should have some sessions focusing on the nature of,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>and a definition for "the global public interest".<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>Might I suggest the following as a starting point?<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>+ Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> that is privately beneficial without being publicly<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> detrimental.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre> - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> be on those who wish to prevent the private use.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre> - Such a demonstration shall require clear and<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> convincing evidence of public detriment.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre> - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> as to justify the suppression of the private activity.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>This is from <a href="http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000059.html">http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000059.html</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre> --karl--<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>