[At-Large] New gTLD implementation Consultation Session London 15 July 2009

[Hong Xue]

>
> And secondly questions to the At-Large List;  1. should we also record/
> engage in further discussion/ debate on this specific topic of ICANN's scope
> (as it relates to the IRT report and new gTLD's in that wiki as well ?  2.
> Do you wish us to set up a 'Commons' associated with that Wiki Workspace to
> encourage and capture more discussion and debate from us all?


In the early days of ICANN (2000-2002), there were a bundle of discussions
on the danger of mission creep. It was pointed out, "what is truly dangerous
about ICANN is that it might use its power over the DNS chokepoint to
enforce global policy on the use of anonymous remailers, on trademark law,
on the exchange of pornographic information or copyrighted music files, or
the rest of the policy issues that it has the power (if not, currently, the
inclination) to address."
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/28/064529

Prevention of mission creep was confirmation by the PSC report. "Furthermore,
while ICANN’s mission is narrow, it is fundamental and critical to the
secure and stable operation of the Internet. The PSC believes that ICANN has
a responsibility to be a discussion leader and raise awareness of issues
linked to stability and security of the Internet. Broader interest and
concern about security and stability issues is, in the view of the PSC, an
important support to the core mission, but should not result in “mission
creep." http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/improving-confidence.htm

I do support Cheryl's suggestion on discussion of "commons". If ICANN cannot
observe its narrow mission, it may be necessary to set up certain principles
to preserve "commons" in this "global policy setting".

With respect to IRT specifically, I assume we don't have to look at the
ICANN bylaws or "principles" (if any). It has been very clearly stated by
Avri, the Chair of GNSO, that it is beyond of the GNSO PDP and oringial gTLD
implementation proposals submitted to the Board. No stakeholder should be
allowed to subvert the PDP. If the ICANN governance is not satisfied with
the outcome of PDP, it could send it back to GNSO for redrafting but could
not insert something new on the top of it.

Hong


>
> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>
>> One more point, which I wanted to write separately:
>>
>> I've heard a lot of people say that Intellectual Property & the work of
>> the IRT fell outside ICANN's scope.
>>
>> Someone asked this specific question & Jonathan Cohen, Senior Partner at
>> Shapiro Cohen replied that this was false: according to him, the ICANN
>> bylaws & principles mention protection of Intellectual Property & Marks, and
>> that therefore, the IRT's proposals fall completely *in line* with ICANN's
>> *core mission*.
>>
>> I'd be interested if this was confirmed/denied.
>>
>> O.
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>



-- 
Hong Xue, Ph.D.
Professor of Law
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law
Beijing Normal University
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China