[governance] Where are we going?

Fri Apr 6 10:10:42 EDT 2007

Dear Willie,

Two points in response to your question :

1) the Board's decision on .xxx was only refering to the GAC's Communiqués
and not to the GAC new gTLD Principles :
- these Principles were only adopted in Lisbon and are intended to apply
only to future calls for proposals (this is explicitedly mentionned in the
text)
- the decision regarding .xxx was - and had to be - in relation to the
initial call for proposals as far as the sponsorship criteria evaluation was
concerned.

2) the Board's decision was in fact refering to the Wellington communiqué
and, more explicitely, to a part of the GAC's Lisbon communiqué that read :

".xxx
the GAC reaffirms the letter sent to the ICANN Board on 2nd February 2007.
the Wellington communiqué remains a valid and important expression of the
GAC's views on .xxx. the GAC does not consider the information provided by
the Board to have answered the GAC concerns as to whether the ICM
application meets the sponsorship criteria.

The GAC also call the Board's attention to the comment from the Government
of canada to the ICANN online Public Forum and expresses concern that, with
the revised proposed ICANN-ICM Registry agreement, the corporation could be
moving towards assuming an ongoing management and oversight role regarding
Internet Content, which would be inconsistent witht its technical mandate."

Text of the Lisbon communiqué is at :
http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf

Hope this answers your questions.

Best

Bertrand

On 4/6/07, wcurrie at apc.org <wcurrie at apc.org> wrote:
>
> 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
>

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070406/f3f7ad9a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070406/f3f7ad9a/attachment.txt>