[governance] Where are we going?

[wcurrie at apc.org]

Thanks Bertrand.

1) The GAC Operating Prinicples I was looking at were amended at Mar del
Plata in April 2005, so I took them to be the principles that would govern
the GAC's actions during the period of the .xxx application. Am I wrong in
thinking this?

2) The Wellington Communique is referenced in the Lisbon Communique and is
now inscibed into the reasons given by the Board, so it has a material
bearing on those decisions, as i explore in my subsequent post.

willie

> 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")
>


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