Hi, I have circulated it to African mailing lists. regards, Alex On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Mary Wong <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi everyone > > Attached is a revised version of the proposed NCSG statement on the US > Government proposal that will no doubt be discussed in Brussels. I've > incorporated all Milton's edits except for a couple of minor language tweaks > and edits. > > Who and what should we send it to? The story's been picked up by quite a > few blogs and other publications (such as Milton's piece on CBS, Declan > McCullagh's and Kieran McCarthy's write ups etc.) so it seems to me that > NCSG can use the opportunity to support the Board doing the right thing. > > I guess we could send to the "usual suspects" like Circle ID, Managing IP, > the folks mentioned here and perhaps the Internet Governance Caucus list, > besides individuals and individual lists we may belong to. Any other ideas? > Or would members prefer a less public approach? > > Cheers > Mary > > > *Mary W S Wong* > *Professor of Law* > *Chair, Graduate IP Programs* > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH > 03301 USA Email: [log in to unmask] Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: > http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on > the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: > http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> > *From: * Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> *To:* < > [log in to unmask]> *Date: * 2/7/2011 2:26 PM *Subject: * Re: > More on USG and ICANN > > Mary > > Thanks for the initial good work. I’ve gone over it, deleted some things, > modified wording mainly on the GAC censorship issue, and added a short > section on Vertical integration. > > As I understand it, you are addressing this statement to the GAC members. > For this to be worthwhile, we must have a means of distributing this to GAC > members. What is your proposed method? I don’t know for sure how to do it. > > On the GAC veto, I have strengthened the language considerably. Please do > not fall into the trap of voicing support for “universal resolvability,” as > if a GAC veto were actually some kind of a remedy for national-level > blocking. Here is my substitute language: > > “We wish to emphasize that an appeal to “universal resolvability of DNS” > cannot possibly justify giving any individual government the power to block > the creation of a TLD “for any reason.” One does not advance the cause of a > globally interconnected internet by encouraging any individual government to > exercise a global authority to block the creation of top level domain > applications. The only effect of such a policy would be to multiply one > country’s controls and regulations to all countries. There are in fact no > technical harms to the Internet as a whole caused by the blocking of a > single TLD by one or a few countries.” > > I also deleted your list of “misapprehensions” – first, what you are doing > there is re-stating USG’s arguments and anyone reading it hurriedly (as > almost all will) can easily come away with the misapprehension that you are > supporting those arguments. Second, it’s too wordy and assumes too careful a > reading - you are telling the reader what arguments you will reject > hundreds of words later, and it’s unlikely people will read the doc with > that level of care, best to just attack the arguments when you attack them. > > Edited file is attached > > > > *From:* Mary Wong [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > *Sent:* Monday, February 07, 2011 12:30 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask]; Milton L Mueller > *Subject:* Re: More on USG and ICANN > > > > Thanks to Milton and Marc for the links. I decided to sit down and read the > US Government proposal in greater detail than I have, and as a result > produced a draft statement for NCSG that I hope you will all sign on to and > that we can circulate widely to facilitate the ICANN Board sticking to only > narrow changes/revisions to the draft Applicant Guidebook by San Francisco. > I'm thinking, in particular, of Board members, GAC friendlies, and > influential publications/blogs/journalists). > > > > Please note that I've only had time (and background) to write about the > proposals relating to the MAPO and Community Objections Procedure, and > briefly on the trademark stuff. If anybody wants to add comments on the > other proposals (e.g. VI, economic analysis), please feel free do so but - > hopefully - soon. > > > > In the same vein, and assuming this makes it as an NCSG comment, I think > it'd be good to circulate it sooner rather than later. As such - and mind > you, I'm not possessive about my language! - please limit your comments to > substantive ones as far as possible. I know my phrasing is likely to be > viewed as too tame by some members, but I won't have time to do a re-write > (nor would I necessarily support a much more impassioned document :) > > > > Finally, I wanted to note that I don't mention one issue of significance to > NCSG - support for developing country applicants (which is what the JAS > working group headed by Rafik is working on in the face of massive > difficulties and opposition within the ICANN community). It may be that this > issue is major enough for some NCSG members to support a delayed launch of > new gTLDs, but I felt it would not be opportune or strategic to include it > in the document (I do, however, sneak in a footnote linking to Milton's blog > post about the topic :) > > > > Please let the list know if you have substantive comments, position > corrections or are working on a draft or re-draft (so we can keep track of > who's doing what). I also apologize if there are members other than Milton > and Avri who have blogged about the issue who I didn't know about and so > didn't use to help draft this document. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > > > *Mary W S Wong* > > *Professor of Law* > > *Chair, Graduate IP Programs* > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH > 03301 USA Email: [log in to unmask] Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: > http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on > the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: > http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > >>> > > *From: * > > Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> > > *To:* > > <[log in to unmask]> > > *Date: * > > 2/7/2011 11:33 AM > > *Subject: * > > Re: More on USG and ICANN > > Ars Technica has also taken up the issue > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/if-governments-can-block-top-level-domains-is-gay-doomed.ars > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marc Rotenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 7:47 AM > > To: Milton L Mueller > > Cc: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: More on USG and ICANN > > > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20030809-281.html > > > > Marc. > > > > > > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the > University of New Hampshire and is now known as the *University of New > Hampshire School of Law.* Please note that all email addresses have > changed and now follow the convention: [log in to unmask] For > more information on the *University of New Hampshire School of Law*, please > visit *law.unh.edu* > > > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the > University of New Hampshire and is now known as the *University of New > Hampshire School of Law.* Please note that all email addresses have > changed and now follow the convention: [log in to unmask] For > more information on the *University of New Hampshire School of Law*, please > visit *law.unh.edu* >