[ALAC] [GTLD-WG] FYI: Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: morality issues

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

OK  tis a day for error correction I guess I have had it pointed out to me
that of course the ICANN Letter to the GAC is NOT a reply to the latest
letter from GAC at all, but actually  to their earlier ones... and there I
was thinking that it was a very prompt reply => the dates had me confused
*sigh*

Sorry to have mislead any one...


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 25 November 2010 10:15, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com> wrote:

> Obviously  still tired  form last few days   typo in my note below changes
> the context completely Sorry...
>
>  SHOULD  READ => "Excellent letter *from *the GAC  in my view at least, re
> the ICANN response, the funny (not)  thing is of course the GAC,  ALAC and
> GNSO  in their co-creation of the CWG  aimed to offer by the action of the
> cross community activity and any agreements they might come up with was to
>  offer to the Board exactly what PDT is asking  for *sigh*  and we all know
> how well that was managed...(and yes I use the term advisedly)...
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> (CLO)
>
>
>
>
> On 25 November 2010 09:09, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  Excellent letter for the GAC  in my view at least, re the ICANN response,
>> the funny (not)  thing is of course the GAC,  ALAC and GNSO  in their
>> co-creation of the CWG  aimed to offer by the action of the cross community
>> activity and any agreements they might come up with was to  offer to the
>> Board exactly what PDT is asking  for *sigh*  and we all know how well that
>> was managed...(and yes I use the term advisedly)...
>>
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr
>> (CLO)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25 November 2010 07:47, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Antony Van Couvering <avc at mindsandmachines.com>
>>> Date: 24 November 2010 14:57
>>> Subject: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re:
>>> morality
>>> issues
>>> To: soac-mapo <soac-mapo at icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> For those not yet aware, there has been an exchange of letters between
>>> GAC
>>> and ICANN concerning the subject matter of this working group.
>>>
>>> The GAC letter of Nov 22 (
>>>
>>> http://icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush-22nov10-en.pdf
>>> )
>>> suggests that there be "prior review" of applications, in order to give
>>> applicants an "early warning" that their TLDs might raise sensitivities.
>>>  It
>>> does not say who should conduct these reviews, what the standards of
>>> review
>>> are, whether there would be any appeal, whether the determination of the
>>> reviewers was final, etc. etc.   The GAC letter suggests that this is
>>> important in view of the principle of universal resolvability, noting
>>> that
>>> to date "there do not appear to be controversial top level domains that
>>> have
>>> resulted in significant or sustained blocking by countries."  The letter
>>> does not explain why this is different than blocking of second-level
>>> domains
>>> by countries, which is a widespread practice.
>>>
>>> The ICANN letter in response (
>>>
>>> http://icann.org/en/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-dryden-23nov10-en.pdf
>>> ),
>>> sent the next day, is a compendium of how ICANN has addressed or is
>>> addressing outstanding issues.  The issues concerning morality and public
>>> order are saved for the end of the letter (pages 9 and 10), and basically
>>> say to the GAC, we appreciate your input, but you need to suggest a way
>>> forward rather than just say you're unhappy with the outcome.  Here's a
>>> couple of quotes from PDT:
>>>
>>> "Various competing interests are involved, for example the rights of
>>> freedom
>>> of expression versus sensitivities associated with terms of national,
>>> cultural, geographic and religious significance. While freedom of
>>> expression
>>> is not absolute, those claiming to be offended on national, cultural,
>>> geographic or religious grounds do not have an automatic veto over
>>> gTLDs."
>>>
>>> "I understand that some GAC members have expressed dissatisfaction with
>>> this
>>> process as it was first described in version 2 of the Guidebook.   The
>>> treatment of this issue in the new gTLD context, was the result of a
>>> well-studied and documented process which involved consultations with
>>> internationally recognized experts in this area.   Advice containing
>>> thoughtful proposals for amending the treatment of this issue that
>>> maintains
>>> the integrity of the policy recommendation would be welcomed.  The
>>> expression of dissatisfaction without a substantive proposal, does not
>>> give
>>> the Board or staff a toehold for considering alternative solutions.
>>> While
>>> the report of the recently convened working group still does not
>>> constitute
>>> a policy statement as conceived in the ICANN bylaws, ICANN staff and
>>> Board
>>> are working to collaborate with the community to adopt many of the
>>> recommendations."
>>>
>>> Antony
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>>>
>>> Working Group direct URL:
>>> https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
>>>
>>
>>
>