[governance] Where are we going?

[wcurrie at apc.org]

Could anyone explain which of the following public policy objectives
contained in the GAC's operating principles were applied in the
deliberations, decision and reasons for the decision of the ICANN Board on
the .xxx application?

3.	ICANN’s decision making should take into account public policy
objectives including, among other things:

•	secure, reliable and affordable functioning of the Internet, including
uninterrupted service and universal connectivity;

•	the robust development of the Internet, in the interest of the public
good, for government, private, educational, and commercial purposes, world
wide;

•	transparency and non-discriminatory practices in ICANN’s role in the
allocation of Internet names and address;

•	effective competition at all appropriate levels of activity and
conditions for fair competition, which will bring benefits to all
categories of users including, greater choice, lower prices, and better
services;

•	fair information practices, including respect for personal privacy and
issues of consumer concern; and

•	freedom of expression.

These are the reasons the iCANN Board gave for its decision:

Therefore, the Board has determined that:

- ICM’s Application and the Revised Agreement fail to meet, among other
things, the Sponsored Community criteria of the RFP specification.
- Based on the extensive public comment and from the GAC's communiqués
that this agreement raises public policy issues.
- Approval of the ICM Application and Revised Agreement is not appropriate
as they do not resolve the issues raised in the GAC Communiqués, and ICM’s
response does not address the GAC’s concern for offensive content, and
similarly avoids the GAC’s concern for the protection of vulnerable
members of the community. The Board does not believe these public policy
concerns can be credibly resolved with the mechanisms proposed by the
applicant.
- The ICM Application raises significant law enforcement compliance issues
because of countries' varying laws relating to content and practices that
define the nature of the application, therefore obligating ICANN to
acquire a responsibility related to content and conduct.
- The Board agrees with the reference in the GAC communiqué from Lisbon,
that under the Revised Agreement, there are credible scenarios that lead
to circumstances in which ICANN would be forced to assume an ongoing
management and oversight role regarding Internet content, which is
inconsistent with its technical mandate.

Accordingly, it is resolved (07.__) that the Proposed Agreement with ICM
concerning the .XXX sTLD is rejected and the application request for a
delegation of the .XXX sTLD is hereby denied.

Are these the only reasons that ICANN will give on the matter?

willie

>>>> George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> 4/5/2007 3:08 PM
>>I think that what is missing in your argument is the recognition that we
live in a multicultural world and that the Internet is a global
phenomenon.
>
> No. It is precisely the multicultural, diverse nature of the world that
animates my desire to prevent ICANN from becoming a chokepoint. Such a
chokepoint, as Robin eloquently put it, becomes a way of "imposing all
intolerances cumulatively on everyone."
>
> Try to understand that, please.
>
> The TLD selection criteria being considered by ICANN will constantly pit
one culture against another. It invites people to view TLD creation as a
conferral of global approval and legitimacy on one set of ideas rather
than as coordination of unique strings, the meaning of which different
nations and cultures can negotiate and regulate according to their own
norms.
>
>>A minimum of decency and respect for the
>>sensitivities of others would go a long way in making the
>>evolution of Internet governance less contentious and more
>>productive
>
> I understand this argument. Vittorio was making the same point.
> There is something to be said for it, as a guide to _personal_ conduct.
But translated into institutionalized rules, it is a recipe for
> systematic suppression of diversity and dissent. If you are prevented by
law from saying something that offends anyone, then your expression is
seriously restricted. Global policy making processes for resource
assignment are not the greatest way to enforce "decency and respect for
sensitivities." Of course that does not mean I advocate going out of my
way to offend people, just because it is legal to do it. And yes, there
are jerks who will do that. But I think the problems posed by a few
insensitive jerks is much smaller than putting into place a global
machinery that encourages organized groups to object to and challenge
the non-violent expressions of others.
>
> Anyway, I think we are finally getting to the core of the disagreement.
The .xxx rejection was not fundamentally about its so-called lack of
community support, or about concerns that it would lead ICANN into
contractual content regulation. It was about this.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


Willie Currie
Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance