<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Milton, <br>
yes, governments are supposed to act via passage of treaties - the
rule of law and I also agree vague terms such as "sensitivities" are
simply not acceptable.<br>
In the case of the right to culture, however, there are treaties and
both international and national laws which deal with this right and
related rights, including for example the International Covenants on
Civil and Political Rights (article 27) and on Economic, Cultural
and Social Rights (articles 1 and 15). And governments have
obligations, duties, to uphold and protect those rights - so I think
GAC members should be asserting these.<br>
However, I think the tricky question for ICANN is: do its policy
processes adequately take into account these rights and, if so, how?
if not, how can it do better. And qns for GAC include how does it
assert obligations under these treaties and laws in ways that uphold
rather than undermine ICANN policy processes? A ban on names is not
the answer, nor is a veto: but some legitimate process for dealing
with conflicting or competing rights remains needed, imho<br>
<br>
Joy<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/10/2014 3:39 a.m., Milton L
Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5d4f76c170434bf68f616a5643640a69@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"
color="#1f497d"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#1F497D">The
problem is that governments are supposed to act via
passage of laws and treaties. But governments cannot agree
on the issues surrounding geographical indicators and
hence there is no applicable law at the global level.
Where there is no law, there should be no global
constraints on what ICANN or the users do. A claim of
“sensitivity,” an inherently subjective term, must not be
transmuted into global regulations just because ICANN can
get away with it. If governments want globally applicable
constraints on those kinds of names, let them pass and
ratify international treaties. If they can’t, then they
must stop attempting to use ICANN as a back door
regulator. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"
color="#1f497d"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"
color="#1f497d"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#1F497D">--MM<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"
color="#1f497d"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<b><font size="2" face="Calibri" color="black"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;font-weight:bold">From:</span></font></b><font
color="black"><span style="color:windowtext">
NCSG-Discuss [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">On Behalf Of </span></b>Sam
Lanfranco<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b>
Friday, October 3, 2014 7:24 PM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b>
Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC proposal to ban top level
domains that use a geographic word unless permission
granted from govt (next rounds of gtlds)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"
color="black"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">
<font size="2" face="Calibri" color="black"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">This may be where I stick my
foot in my mouth but I would like to suggest a middle
ground here. I see little gain from simply opposing any
GAC authority where geographic and similar gTLD names
confront national geographic sensitivities. The issue
would not go away and there would be the prospects of
either ICANN simply saying “yes” to government requests,
or an endless series of one-gTLD-at-a-time trench fights
involving ICANN, constituencies, and individual national
governments, trench fights with the potential for
considerable collateral damage all around. <br>
<br>
It of course makes sense to support a recommended
consultation process between potential applicants and
national authorities. There also may be merit to having
individual governments convey their recommendations
through GAC, and not have individual governments make
recommendations directly to ICANN. In the case of
government approval GAC would simply convey approval to
ICANN.<br>
<br>
In the case where government objects there may be some
merit in GAC having a short time frame review of the
case, one that allows for submissions by other
stakeholders. If the GAC review does not change the
individual government’s position, GAC conveys
non-approval to ICANN. <br>
<br>
This process would have several merits. It recognizes
the legitimacy of national interests in geographic
related gTLDs, in contested gTLDs it allows for a second
consultation within GAC, and it channels government
relations through GAC to ICANN. As well, it starts to
generate a body of case law like decisions that begin to
set the boundaries on where national geographic
sensitivities come into play, and that evolves from
within GAC, and not from within ICANN, which should not
be making decisions in this area. <br>
<br>
As for worries that this area of geographic
sensitivities would be used against freedom of
expression or to curb the activities of civil society,
while I always worry about governmental interference in
the human rights of people and peoples, I do not see
this issue as a particular threat in that area. <br>
</span></font><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif""><br>
Sam L.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>