[LAC-Discuss] FW: [governance] Where are we going?

Carlton A Samuels carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm
Tue Apr 10 09:59:45 EDT 2007


.....here's a post that puts a fence around the issue

..

 

-----Original Message-----
From: wcurrie at apc.org [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org] 
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 8:20 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we going?

 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070410/b3f9d00f/attachment.html>


More information about the lac-discuss-en mailing list