[governance] Where are we going?

[wcurrie at apc.org]

Dear Bertrand

1) I see these are three documents on the ICANN GAC site
http://gac.icann.org/web/index.shtml

a. GAC Operating principles amended in Mar del Plata, April 2005 which
lays out the scope of the GAC and the principles governing its conduct

b. PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES FOR THE DELEGATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF
COUNTRY CODE TOP LEVEL DOMAINS, adopted at Mar del Plata, April 2005

c. GAC principles regarding new gTLDs presented by GAC in Lisbon, 28 March
2007

I was referring to the public policy objectives in the first document on
GAC Operating Principles.

2) I agree with your point 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.'

But I would ask - how much is the .xxx debacle a  function of a lack of
early interaction between stakeholders and the relative novelty of
multi-stakeholder participation: wouldn't the same problems with respect
to public policy principles in relation to the management of critical
internet resources arise? And was this not why the matter was placed on
the Tunis Agenda as part of a multi-stakeholder process of enhanced
cooperation? What is the thinking of governments in Europe now about
'enhanced cooperation'? It seems to have slipped quietly off the agenda
and been studiously ignored at the level of the IGF...

Best
Willie

> 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")


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






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