[Internet Policy] The 2-Character Answer to this GAC Advice Should be "No"

Wed May 17 14:15:41 EEST 2017

I feared this GAC pressure.  Oh well.  Water under the bridge.  What would be helpful now, I think, is a strong statement from the GNSO Council to the Board that negotiating with a minority of the GAC is utterly unacceptable.  Two letter words (in English or any other language) are not the “property” of the ccTLD holder.  

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key:  <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:49 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] The 2-Character Answer to this GAC Advice Should be "No"

Shiva:

First mitigation measures approved by ICANN Board on 8th of November 2016, were opposed by many ccTLD registries and Governments during the comment period

MM: This does not change the fact that the GAC does not have consensus. GAC advice requires all governments to concur, or refuse to block, before it can be considered “advice.” Some governments have all kinds of crazy ideas, and ccTLDs have a vested _private_ interest in making their strings as exclusive as possible. But that idea breaks down when the two-letter codes are generic English words like “NO” or “IT” – and may be in other languages as well. 

raised by GAC members and also, it fails to address the Dublin GAC advice - Capacity limitations of Governments, Simple questions is that "How will Governments and ccTLD managers will be able to monitor each New gTLD, whether they are misusing the Country Codes or not at second level"

MM: Real misuse (as opposed to imaginary misuse) should be easy to detect. If it is actually causing harm, deception, etc. There are all kinds of automated scanning processes that can be used to monitor what domains exist. This is not a good argument. 

As per my understanding, there is a need to develop mitigation measures separately for each category of risk involved with a different kind of gTLDs.

MM: I don’t agree. The GAC needs to understand that any alleged harms associated with a second level name in a new TLD will be discovered ex post on a case by case basis, based on the actual facts associated with its use. We cannot and should not be using general “categories” and ex ante exclusionary rules. 

Regards,

Shiva Upadhyay

+91 9717992652

On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 11:14 AM, gangadhar <000004f7f8ca2221-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto:000004f7f8ca2221-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> > wrote:

I fully agree with the contention of David, Mueller, Corwin and Farzi

Gangadhar Panday

President

Babul Films Soceity nonprofit

www.babul.ngo <http://www.babul.ngo>  

Videos and ICT for Eco-awareness

On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 7:51 AM, David Cake <dave at DAVECAKE.NET <mailto:dave at DAVECAKE.NET> > wrote:

Yes, this is a very odd, contorted GAC position here, where their consensus advice is that they do not have consensus, but the board must negotiate with the loud angry minority anyway. 

And the GAC clearly does not have consensus, many governments (including my own) are not happy with the attempt to create this right with no legal or policy basis. 

David

There are many governments (including mine) who feel the attempt to create a right that has no support 

On 17 May 2017, at 4:52 am, Alex Gakuru <gakuru at gmail.com <mailto:gakuru at gmail.com> > wrote:

ICANN is a complicated animal 

On 16 May 2017 9:05 pm, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org> > wrote:

I also agree with Farzi, Phil, and Milton.  GAC is constantly grabbing for more power and we need to be aware of that and push back when it happens, such as in this case.

Thanks,

Robin

On May 16, 2017, at 10:40 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu> > wrote:

Completely agree with Farzaneh and Corwin here. This is more than just a 2-letter ccTLD issue, it is an issue fundamental to the accountability reforms. When we (NCSG) want a policy change or to advance a new policy, we are constantly told that we must work hard to get consensus and/or a certain number of votes. Unfortunately, the GAC-board relationship has always provided a channel through which the legitimate policy development process can be bypassed based on private deals and political bargaining between ICANN staff/board and a special interest group. This has to stop! It’s extremely corrosive of the integrity of ICANN process.

If GAC has not offered consensus advice, it creates no obligation whatsoever to compromise; indeed, it is not even “advice” in the bylaw meaning. This is a fact.  

Dr. Milton L Mueller

Professor,  <http://spp.gatech.edu/> School of Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology

Internet Governance Project

 <http://internetgovernance.org/> http://internetgovernance.org/

From: NCSG-Discuss [ <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV. SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of farzaneh badii
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:23 AM
To:  <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu> NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR. EDU
Subject: Re: Fw: [Internet Policy] The 2-Character Answer to this GAC Advice Should be "No"

Hi Ayden

I raised the 2-character issue and GAC involvement during our meeting with Markus in Copenhagen. The short answer was (my interpretation): we have to compromise.   I had previously raised the 2-character issue in a blog post and mentioned that  GAC advice was not consensus advice. Why is the Board acting upon it? Every time we raise some issue either we are told we don't know anything about the process (which I have educated myself on this to know) and that we have to compromise. I think arguing "we have to compromise" can lead to what Phil says: "Continuing down this dangerous path may provide governments with far more leverage over ICANN policy decisions"

Farzaneh

Farzaneh 

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Ayden Férdeline < <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com> icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

Worth a read.

- Ayden 

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: [Internet Policy] The 2-Character Answer to this GAC Advice Should be "No"

Local Time: May 16, 2017 3:43 PM

UTC Time: May 16, 2017 2:43 PM

From:  <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com> psc at vlaw-dc.com

To: ISOC policy List < <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org> internetpolicy at elists.isoc. org>

I have just published a new article regarding current ICANN developments between the Board and GAC. It can be found at  <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170516_the_2_character_answer_to_this_gac_advice_should_be_no/> http://www.circleid.com/ posts/20170516_the_2_ character_answer_to_this_gac_ advice_should_be_no/

Here’s the introduction—

Overview: ICANN’s GAC has reacted to the ICANN Board’s November 2016 decision to authorize the release of two-character domains at new gTLDs with advice to the Board that does not   have true consensus backing from GAC members and that relates to procedure, not policy. The Board’s proper response should be to just say no,  stick to its decision and advise the GAC that it will not consider such advice.

Instead, the Board has, against the preliminary advice of the policy-making GNSO Council, initiated discussions with aggrieved GAC members that may reopen its decision. Continuing down this dangerous path may provide governments with far more leverage over ICANN policy decisions than was ever envisioned or intended by the long debated and carefully crafted new Bylaws language addressing the Board’s responsibility to give attention to GAC advice.

I hope you find it of interest and welcome any feedback.

Best regards,

Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170517/662df724/attachment.htm>