Dear all,

Thanks for the positive responses to this discussion and your various suggestions. To help keep the discussion flowing, I have below posted the original suggestions with additions/comments in discussion. This is an open dialogue and all comments are welcome.

Draft Principles and Summary of Discussion

· NCSG prioritises the non-commercial, public interest aspects of domain name policy.[No disagreement]

· Guardianship: gTLD policy should be focused on responsibilities and service to the community [Some concern about definition of ‘community’ as well as that responsibilities may be used to override individual rights. It was noted that this principle was based on RFC 1591 and further comments sought. Question: any further views on this?]

· Multi-stakeholder: gTLD policy should be determined by open multi-stakeholder processes. [No disagreement but there was a suggestion emphasis be on stakeholders’ participation being equal, with no one stakeholder being privileged over another.]

· Human rights: gTLD policy should meet human rights standards, including transparency and the rule of law. [No disagreement: some members wanted to emphasise particular rights: privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of association].

· Equity: parties to domain registrations (including non-commercial registrants) should be on a level playing field; domain registrations should be first come first served (“FCFS”). [No disagreement with the first part, but it was pointed out that in some cases there are legitimate reasons for registration policies not to be FCFS (such as auctions, controlling name policies). Question: should the reference to FCFS be removed or qualified in some way?

· Competition and choice: gTLD policy should ensure competition and choice for non-commercial registrants and non-commercial internet users. [No disagreement].

· In case of conflict, the principle of guardianship prevails. [No disagreement that there should be an overriding principle, but refer to concerns raised above under principle of guardianship]

Some members suggested a further principle be added emphasising the end to end decentralised infrastructure of the internet. A suggested principle here might be:

· The end to end design of the Internet should be maintained

Others suggested there be an emphasis on internet protocol address records being public good in nature. Discussion on this is continuing on the list with a reference to the CoE principles as well as a suggestion of an economic analyses framing these as public goods and the importance of not interfering with decentralised private activity at the end points.

Please join the conversation.

Regards

Joy Liddicoat

Project Coordinator

Internet Rights are Human Rights

www.apc.org

Tel: +64 21 263 2753

Skype id: joy.liddicoat

Yahoo id: [log in to unmask]