[governance] Where are we going?

Fri Apr 6 11:17:12 EDT 2007

Dear Willie,

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

Unless I'm mistaken, the Mar del Plata Principles were related to ccTLDs.
There may be common sets of principles, but ccTLD principles are not
appropriate to deal with .xxx application. In addition, the timing is still
mostly posterior to the call for proposals.

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.

Regarding your second post, I won't comment on your remarks except to say
that one benefit of the .xxx discussion is to  put on the agenda the
question of the appropriate modalities of interaction between the different
categories of stakeholders within ICANN.

In particular, it only demonstrates, as I have repeatedly said in the public
fora, the need to have more systematic interaction between GAC members and
other constituencies within ICANN early in the discussion of issues. Not so
much because of the "rights" of governments but because it is useful. The
point is to identify as early as possible the different technical, social,
economic and political dimensions of a given issue.

I have been defending the multi-stakeholder principle within civil society
for four years within the UN process of WSIS. I am defending today the same
principle of multi-stakeholder interaction in the different space of ICANN
regarding the useful role of government involvement.  Not because I would
have orders to do it; but because it's the same constructive battle and I
believe in it. Everything in the last five years has confirmed in my
experience that positions elaborated within closed constituencies are
difficult to reconcile at a later stage and that early multi-stakeholder
interaction is essential to generate consensus. It is valid for interaction
among governments in UN-like fora and for business-technical communities
interactions in the ICANN context.

The .xxx issue was a test case. Early interaction was weak and we must learn
from it. Irrespective of what happens now, if it were to lead us to deper
analysis of principles and working methods, it would not be useless.

Best

Bertrand

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)
>
>

-- 
____________________
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/cac04a89/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/cac04a89/attachment.txt>