Sender: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:00:17 -0700 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed |
Organization: |
IP Justice |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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 <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
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
|
|
|