The way national law gets translated into international law is usually
through explicit treaties between nations, ratified by their national
legislatures. So the international coordination then becomes a matter of
national law in all participating nations.
In the absence of such treaties, yes, the definition of international scope
becomes problematic. But the solution to that seems to be more treaties,
which would be a process outside of ICANN's multistakeholder governance
structure. It certainly seems wrong for ICANN to preempt such
treaty-building processes.
It feels like GAC wants to turn ICANN into a big ad hoc loophole in the
international treaty process, and I can't see anything good coming from
that. It's not like simply moving it to ICANN removes the political
dynamics that complicate treaties. It just brings those politics into
ICANN, which is not well equipped to handle them (nor should it expect to
be).
Dan
--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
At 1:21 PM -0500 5/14/13, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>One common misconception about this type of commentaries is that many
>people forget that on the Internet there is no borders or boundaries, a
>packet that today flows through country A tomorrow may do it through B, a
>domain name can be registered from almost anywhere in the world, some
>european user may have hosted her mail in the USA while an American
>company may have part of their website backend served from India.
>
>So when talking about creating "national" laws it is not very easy to
>define the scope of their applications.
>
>-Jorge
>
>On May 14, 2013, at 11:47 AM,
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>>New post on Circle ID today by a guy who read Milton's blog post from
>>yesterday and who apparently works with law enforcement:
>><http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130514_icann_and_gac_a_new_role_needed/>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130514_icann_and_gac_a_new_role_needed/
>>
>>
>>His view seems to be that the GAC should stay but that governments should
>>not overreach but rather act through national laws (albeit in a
>>coordinated fashion).
>>
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Mary
>>
>>
>>
>>Mary W S Wong
>>Professor of Law
>>Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
>>Chair, Graduate IP Programs
>>UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
>>Two White Street
>>Concord, NH 03301
>>USA
>>Email: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>>Webpage: <http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
>>>http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>From:
>>
>>McTim <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>To:
>>
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>Date:
>>
>>5/14/2013 12:41 PM
>>
>>Subject:
>>
>>Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on support for diversity of
>>views in our community
>>
>>From today's agenda
>>
>>A. GAC Communique on "safeguard" advice
>>Public Comment Period
>>Comment end: 14 May
>>
>>
>>Are we (MM?) going to submit the comments today?
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Cheers,
>>
>>McTim
>>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
>>
>>
>>On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Avri Doria
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>><http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status
>>>refers to it as the objection and dispute resolution process:
>>>
>>> "Objection and Dispute Resolution The objection period for new gTLDs
>>>began on 13 June 2012 and has been extended to 13 March 2013. Once the
>>>objection filing period closes, all objections received will move
>>>through a dispute resolution process."
>>>
>>> So I feel safe arguing we are now in a dispute resolution process
>>>
>>> I am not saying anything normative other than we should describe it in
>>>recognizable terms used by others in this case, as what the process its
>>>being called is not the crux of the issue at hand. I have no opinion on
>>>whether this is an appropriate name for the
>>>objection-response-adjudication process. But if necessary to get
>>>consensus on this, call it the objection and dispute resolution process.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jorge Amodio <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>IMHO objection != dispute
>>>>
>>>>-Jorge
>>>>
>>>>On May 14, 2013, at 1:00 AM, Avri Doria
>>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Going back to your original question, my point was that the whole ICC
>>>>thing is dispute resolution process.
>>>>>
>>>>> avri
>>>>>
>>>>> On 14 May 2013, at 00:36, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's more or less the same interpretation I've on this side. I
>>>>think that we may see some dispute resolution in cases where more than
>>>>one applicant passes the initial evaluation for the same string. Not
>>>>sure about amazon, but I'm sure that for Patagonia there is a single
>>>>applicant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Jorge
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 13, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Avri Doria
>>>>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Objections have been filed, and people have had to respond to them
>>>>(or not as they chose), even if they weren't through the Initial
>>>>Evaluation first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Strictly speaking I don't think any ICC panels have been formed yet
>>>>(not that I would know for sure), but I think of the process as having
>>>>begun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the list of pending cases:
>>>><http://www.iccwbo.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=19327354883>http://www.iccwbo.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=19327354883
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .AMAZON (Application ID: 1-1315-58086)
>>>>......................................................................................................
>>>>22
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .PATAGONIA (Application ID: 1-1084-78254)
>>>>..................................................................................................
>>>>15
>>>>>>> .PATAGONIA (Application ID: 1-1084-78254)
>>>>..................................................................................................
>>>>26
>>>>>>> .PATAGONIA (Application ID: 1-1084-78254)
>>>>................................................................................................
>>>>134
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think them calling it a pending case mens it is in the process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13 May 2013, at 22:05, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good point, Jorge, I think what Avri meant was that an objection
>>>>to those strings had been lodged. Avri, can you clarify quickly?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss
>>>>>>>>>[<mailto:[log in to unmask]>mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>>>>>>On
>>>>Behalf
>>>>>>>>> Of Jorge Amodio
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 3:54 PM
>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on support
>>>>for
>>>>>>>>> diversity of views in our community
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Forgive my ignorance or I may have missed something but I don't
>>>>think that
>>>>>>>>> there is any string from the first new gTLD batch in the "dispute
>>>>resolution"
>>>>>>>>> stage yet, afaik that comes after the evaluation results, isn't
>>>>it ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Jorge
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 13, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Robin Gross
>>>>>>>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Folks:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The edited version of the draft is at:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_->https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-
>>>>>>>>> B5xvhE5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As a compromise to the few objections on the earlier drafts, the
>>>>current
>>>>>>>>> version states it does not take a position on the amazon and
>>>>patagonia
>>>>>>>>> applications. (Remember we are not commenting on individual
>>>>applications
>>>>>>>>> in this stmt, we are commenting on GAC process).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The deadline for NCSG filing these comments is tomorrow so I
>>>>will be filing
>>>>>>>>> them in 24 hours unless there are any other strong objections.
>>>>Thanks to
>>>>>>>>> Milton and others for all the redrafting and compromising to get
>>>>a statement
>>>>>>>>> we can submit as a group.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> Avri Doria
|
