[governance] ICANN New gTLD Policy Up for Debate in Lisbon: Censorship & Nat'l Sovereignty at Issue

[Robin Gross]

Hi Susan,

Sorry about the bad link.  Wish I was in Lisbon this week for all the 
fun!  :-)

The link to the latest draft of the GNSO Committee's report is here:
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/pdp-dec05-draft-fr.htm

The link to the NCUC proposal is here:
  http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/drafts/022207.html

Best,
Robin


Susan Crawford wrote:

>Hey, Robin, the link goes to Whois -- do you have the draft proposal link?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
>Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:09 PM
>To: expression at ipjustice.org; a2k-igf at ipjustice.org; a2k discuss list;
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: [governance] ICANN New gTLD Policy Up for Debate in Lisbon:
>Censorship & Nat'l Sovereignty at Issue
>
>IPJ Blog post on new gTLD policy:
>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/03/22/icann_gtld_policy_problems/
>
>======
>
>-- ICANN New gTLD Policy Up for Debate in Lisbon: Censorship and 
>National Sovereignty at Issue --
>
>22 March 2007 - As ICANN's Board Meeting 
>http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/ in Lisbon is about to kick-off, a 
>number of important policy issues are on the agenda.
>
>One of the most hotly contested issues at ICANN is the current draft 
>proposal regarding the introduction of new generic top-level domains 
>(gTLDs) and its impact on free expression and national sovereignty.
>
>While the latest (16 March 2007) draft proposal 
>http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16mar07.htm would no 
>longer allow a single country to block a new gTLD string application for 
>non-technical reasons, it would allow any group of nations to block an 
>application for a new top-level domain for non-technical reasons.
>
>Recommendation 6 in the draft proposal still reads "Strings must not be 
>contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and 
>public order."
>
>But now, instead of any 1 country being able to block a string on a 
>subject it didn't like, any group of countries objecting to a string 
>would be able to kill the application.
>
>Why would the ICANN Board want to give this kind of control and 
>censorious powers to the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)? ICANN 
>should stick to its technical mission and remain content-neutral in the 
>allocation of new top-level domains and leave the politics out of the 
>formulations.
>
>And the proposed gTLD policy still operates under the fiction that there 
>are such accepted public policy and morality legal norms.
>
>The proposed gTLD policy is still a recipe for censorship and an attack 
>on national sovereignty. Why should the restrictions in any one country 
>be imposed upon the citizens of another country? No one has even 
>attempted to provide a justification for that.
>
>ICANN's Non-Commercial User's Constituency (NCUC) proposed 
>http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/drafts/022207.html to reform the new gTLD 
>policy so that national laws will govern what speech may be permitted in 
>a country, not ICANN policy. But that proposal was summarily swept aside.
>
>Former ICANN Board Member Michael Palage and current GNSO Council Member 
>Avri Doria have published a paper 
>http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/keep_core_neutral.pdf
>
>recommending that ICANN remain content-neutral and resist the path of 
>censorship in the introduction of new gTLDs.
>
>Concerned Netizens are encouraged to contact the ICANN Board and their 
>GAC Members to urge reform of the proposed policy. NCUC prepared a 
>sample letter to ICANN Board Members 
>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/03/22/letter_board_gtld and a sample letter 
>to GAC Members http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/03/22/letter_gac_gtlds to 
>assist Netizens in making their voices heard.
>
>The GNSO Committee's proposal still erroneously equates trademark rights 
>with rights to domain names. The draft proposal attempts to justify 
>censorship in the new gTLD space on the flaky rationale that trademark 
>law does not permit the registration of scandalous words. The Committee 
>fails to recognize that a trademark is an exclusive right to prevent 
>others from using a word in commerce, and the policy they are setting is 
>whether anyone can use use a word at all in the new gTLD space. Big 
>difference.
>
>Both the GNSO Committee on New gTLDs and the GAC will make policy 
>recommendations on the issue to the ICANN Board. The ICANN Board will 
>then vote on the policy recommendations. The ICANN Board would be smart 
>to remain content-neutral and not allow ICANN's technical mission to 
>become muddled down in politics by giving GAC any power to prevent a new 
>string for non-technical reasons. Nor should ICANN give itself any right 
>to prevent a string for non-technical reasons. Besides the fact that its 
>censorship, it will also create legal liability for ICANN.
>
>But the question remains open: Can ICANN stand-up to the GAC and resist 
>the urge to impose a policy of censorship in the new gTLD space?
>
>See related: NCUC Press Release of 2/27/7 "Power Grab: ICANN to Become 
>Internet's Word Police" http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/02/27/icann-power-grab/
>
>If you live in the United States, your representative on the GAC is 
>Suzanne Sene from the US Commerce Department. Suzanne Sene can be 
>contacted via email to SSene[at]ntia.doc.gov
>
>The ICANN GAC representatives from other countries are listed here: 
>http://gac.icann.org/web/contact/reps/index.shtml
>
>The ICANN Board of Directors are listed here: 
>http://www.icann.org/general/board.html
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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
>
>
>
>  
>

____________________________________________________________
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