Thanks Debbie. Just did not want to leave anyone out in my request. a. On 10 Dec 2010, at 12:36, <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > <<NPOC Comments on AGB.pdf>> Avri, > > Because of timing, I will not be able to get approval from NPOC to > endorse these comments. We don't meet again until January. However, > NPOC did submit its comments on December 1st. Please see attached. > Thanks, > Debbie > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 11:33 AM > To: NCSG Members List > Cc: NCSG-Policy > Subject: [ncsg-policy] Re: Comments on the ICANN Proposed Final Version > of the Applicant Guidebook > > Milton, > > Thanks for forwarding this on. > > Does the NCSG, and/or the NCUC, and/or the NPOC, and/or the Consumer > Constituency/Interest-group wish to endorse it? > > a. > > On 10 Dec 2010, at 10:59, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> The IGF Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression has submitted these > comments to ICANN regarding the free expression issues raised by the > so-called "limited public interest" objection. >> >> From: Ben Wagner [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 10:27 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Comments on the ICANN Proposed Final Version of the Applicant > Guidebook >> >> Comments on the ICANN Proposed Final Version of the Applicant > Guidebook >> >> As the multistakeholder Dynamic Coalition for Freedom of Expression , > developed from the Internet Governance Forum, we wish to comment on > Section 3.4.3 of the Proposed Final Version of the Applicant Guidebook. >> >> Domain names are a form of expression on the Internet and have been > recognized as such by various court jurisdictions.[1] Moreover, > censorship or suspension of domain names is often triggered by the > content on websites, therefore we anticipate a risk that objections to > new top level domains may often be motivated by an attempt to suppress > or restrict certain forms of controversial or diverse expression. >> >> Freedom of expression is well recognized as a fundamental human right. > The leading instruments are the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights and > the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCRP). Article > 19 of the UDHR, which is considered customary international laws and > applies to all countries states: >> >> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this > right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to > seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and > regardless of frontiers. >> >> Under international standards as set by the UN Human Rights Committee, > any limitations on freedom of expression must satisfy that the > interference is provided in law and is clear and accessible, the > interference must pursue a legitimate aim as set out under Article 19(3) > of the ICCPR, and the restrictions must be necessary and > proportionate.[2] >> >> Objecting to a TLD string on the grounds of its meaning, or the > content that one expects to be associated with the domain, constitutes a > form of prior restraint on expression. Because the scope of ICANN's > jurisdiction over the domain name system is global, ICANN's TLD > objection processes constitute a precedent-setting form of global > content regulation. Given a well-recognized international right to > freedom of expression, the criteria used to suppress TLDs must be very > narrowly circumscribed and the authority must be used sparingly. Only > those TLD strings that clearly violate well-established international > laws should be blocked under this provision. >> >> Section 3.4.3, currently titled "Limited Public Interest Objection," > allow various parties to object to the creation of a new top level > domain because "the applied-for gTLD string is contrary to general > principles of international law for morality and public order." >> >> We believe that the current version of the AG does not sufficiently > respect legitimate free expression rights. We encourage ICANN's board > and staff to make appropriate modifications in the final applicant > guidebook. We have the following concerns and propose a number of > specific modifications. >> >> >> 1. The title should be changed to "Objections based on general > principles of international law." The term "public interest" is too > broad and ill-defined, and lacks any firm basis in international law. > Labeling the class of objection "public interest" encourages parties to > object to forms of expression that they dislike or disapprove of, > regardless of their status under defined international law. We note that > a cross-community working group that included governments (GAC), > business/civil society domain name users and suppliers (GNSO) and > internet users (ALAC) decisively rejected the term "public interest" as > a label for this category of objection precisely for this reason. We ask > ICANN staff to re-label this class of objection. >> >> 2. We note that numerous governments objected to inclusion of > the terms "morality and public order" as the basis for these objections. > They noted, correctly, that there is no global standard for morality and > public order, as different cultures and communities have radically > different standards. Here again, established international legal > agreements are the more appropriate standard to cite rather than > "morality and public order." We ask that the term "morality and public > order" be stricken from the text. E.g., on p. 3-18 staff should replace > "contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and > public order that are recognized under principles of international law" > with "contrary to generally accepted principles of international law." >> >> 3. The decision to censor a top level domain should not be > outsourced to a private "dispute resolution service provider" as > proposed in the Module 3 attachment. While we recognize the need for > expert advice, we believe that there should be clear lines of > accountability for any decision to suppress expression and that the > ICANN board should make the decision directly. We are concerned about > the long term implications of outsourcing such decisions to private > DRSPs, who will tend to view dispute resolution as a revenue stream and > thus develop an incentive to encourage and facilitate objections. We are > also concerned about the lack of accountability inherent in the use of a > revolving panel of experts selected by a subcontractor of ICANN. If the > decisions are consistently wrong, what recourse do applicants or free > speech advocates have? >> >> 4. Should there be a DRSP, we believe that it is entirely > inappropriate for the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) to serve > as the authority selecting experts for disputes involving basic human > rights such as freedom of expression. The ICC's International Centre for > Expertise is a money-making service offered by a business advocacy > group. It has no specific expertise or track record on freedom of > expression issues. We object strongly to the prospect of the human right > to communicate being adjudicated by this group. Various alternatives to > the ICC were suggested during the cross-community working group > deliberations. >> >> 5. We are also deeply concerned about the "Independent > Objector" proposal. The Independent Objector seems to allow objections > to be made on an anonymous and unaccountable basis. We believe that the > burden of proof should always be on objectors to prove that a proposed > top level domain name is illegal; the default should be to allow diverse > and even controversial forms of expression. The existence of an > Independent Objector seems to encourage parties to make objections > secretly and at no cost, which reverses the proper burden of proof. >> >> >> [1] In the U.S., see The Taubman Company v. Webfeats, et al. 319 F.3d > 770 (6th Cir., February 7, 2003), which stated "The rooftops of our past > have evolved into the internet domain names of our present. We find > that the domain name is a type of public expression, no different in > scope than a billboard or a pulpit, and Mishkoff has a First Amendment > right to express his opinion about Taubman, and as long as his speech is > not commercially misleading, the Lanham Act cannot be summoned to > prevent it." In Canada, (January 2001), a British Columbia court stated > that "when a Web site is used for expression in a labour relations > dispute, as opposed to commercial competition, there is... a reasonable > balance that must be struck between the legitimate protection of a > party's intellectual property and... [freedom] of expression." See also > Article 19's analysis of the relationship between domain name > regulations and the International Covenant on Civil and Political > Rights.http://www.article19.org/pdfs/analysis/kazakhstan-s-domain-names. > pdf >> >> [2] Para.3 of General comment 10 on Article 19 of the ICCPR., Human > Rights Committee, (Nineteenth session, 1983), Compilation of General > Comments and General Recommendations, Adopted by Human Rights Treaty > Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 11 (1994). > >> >> >> The Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the > Media on the Internet, Internet Governance Forum. >> >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/dynamic-coalitions/75-foeonline > > <NPOC Comments on AGB.pdf> > ---- > Everything about this list: http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/info/ncsg-policy