Colleagues:
There were substantial changes to the draft gnso recommendations in
yesterday's gnso council mtg. The new version in below.
The gnso's adoption of GAC Principle 2.1 that mandated cultural and
religious sensitivities in domain names has been dropped from gnso Rec
#6. And there is now recognition that free expression is a value to
protect in #3 and #6. And #6's prohibition against immoral and
disorderly domain names should not allow a particular ban in one country
to extend to the whole world.
There continues to be much disagreement on council about Rec. #11 which
was "Staff Evaluators will be used to make preliminary determinations
about applications as part of a process which includes the use of expert
panels to make decisions." I'm not really sure what will be proposed
next for this. But we have been asking for the evaluations to be
technical and operational only, so there wouldn't be a need for expert
panels (or ICANN) to make up new 'international law' outside of
democratic processes and public accountability.
And Rec #20 is also very contentious and we need to continue to push on
it. #20 calls for a public opposition period so anyone who doesn't like
a string application can lobby to reject it.
Special thanks to Mawaki and Norbert and Victoria for helping to argue
these points!
Best,
Robin
previous gnso draft recommendations:
http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/GNSORecomOverview11May2007.htm
last week's ncuc amendments:
http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/062007.html
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gtld-council] Plain text version of new gTLD recommendations
as changed during the call
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:42:02 +1000
From: Bruce Tonkin <[log in to unmask]>
To: Council GNSO <[log in to unmask]>
CC: <[log in to unmask]>
Hello All,
Below is a plain text version of the new gTLD recommendations as changed
during the call.
They are getting better all the time :-)
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
1 ICANN must implement a process that allows the introduction of
new top-level domains.
The evaluation and selection procedure for new gTLD registries should
respect the principles of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination.
All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be evaluated
against transparent and predictable criteria, fully available to the
applicants prior to the initiation of the process. Normally, therefore,
no subsequent additional selection criteria should be used in the
selection process.
2 Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level
domain.
3 Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others
that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and
internationally recognized principles of law.
Examples of these legal rights that are internationally recognized
include, but are not limited to, rights defined in the Paris Convention
for the Protection of Industrial Property (in particular trademark
rights), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular freedom of speech
rights).
4 Strings must not cause any technical instability.
5 Strings must not be a Reserved Word.
6 Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms
relating to morality and public order that are enforceable under
generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law.
Examples of such limitations that are internationally recognized
include, but are not limited to, restrictions defined in the Paris
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (in particular
restrictions on the use of some strings as trademarks), and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (in particular limitations to
freedom of speech rights).
7 Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical
capability to run a registry operation for the purpose that the
applicant sets out.
8 Applicants must be able to demonstrate their financial and
organisational operational capability.
9 There must be a clear and pre-published application process
using objective and measurable criteria.
10 There must be a base contract provided to applicants at the
beginning of the application process.
11 (intentionally blank)
12 Dispute resolution and challenge processes must be established
prior to the start of the process.
13 Applications must initially be assessed in rounds until the
scale of demand is clear.
14 The initial registry agreement term must be of a commercially
reasonable length.
15 There must be renewal expectancy.
16 Registries must apply existing Consensus Policies and adopt new
Consensus Polices as they are approved.
17 A clear compliance and sanctions process must be set out in the
base contract which could lead to contract termination.
18 If an applicant offers an IDN service, then ICANN's IDN
guidelines must be followed.
19 Registries must use ICANN accredited registrars.
20 An application will be rejected if it is determined, based on
public comments or otherwise, that there is substantial opposition to it
from among significant established institutions of the economic sector,
or cultural or language community, to which it is targeted or which it
is intended to support.
|
