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

[Alexandre Arns Gonzales]

Hello,

Ojedeji, I believe you can find the recomendation, at least, of the
modification in the bylaw here
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56145016&preview=/56145016/56989161/Formatted-Annex%2011%202-PROOFED.pdf>.
The modification is printed below:

[image: Imagem inline 3]



But, regarding the the GAC comment
<https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee?preview=/27132037/44663677/GAC%20ICANN%2058%20Communique%20-%20Full%20-%2015mar17.pdf>,
which Corwin mentins, I think that *there was a consensus from the GAC* to
advice the board to engage with the concerned governments, due the fact
that there where no no consensus within the members GAC about the Board
Resolution regarding the 2-character country/territory codes at second
level domain. So, instead, the consequences for the ICANN's accountability
are that this situation is enhancing it.

[image: Imagem inline 2]

2017-05-17 16:22 GMT-03:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> Hello,
>
> Just for my proper understanding (not focusing on that article), I will
> like to know what section of the bylaw requires that Board MUST not
> react/respond to GAC advice that did not achieve GAC consensus?
>
> My understanding of the bylaw was that the Board had the option to act or
> not act if consensus wasn't achieved within GAC and when it's a consensus
> advice then such option to not act isn't there.
>
> Overall, I don't think it is appropriate to imply Board acted out of scope
> of the bylaw in this scenario.
>
> Regards
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On May 17, 2017 2:51 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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 <+91%2097179%2092652>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 11:14 AM, gangadhar <
>> 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
>>
>> Videos and ICT for Eco-awareness
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 7:51 AM, David Cake <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> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> ICANN is a complicated animal
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16 May 2017 9:05 pm, "Robin Gross" <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>
>> 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, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/>
>>
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>> Internet Governance Project
>>
>> http://internetgovernance.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV. SYR.EDU
>> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>] *On Behalf Of* farzaneh badii
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:23 AM
>> *To:* 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 <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: psc at vlaw-dc.com
>>
>> To: ISOC policy List <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 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
>>
>> *202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
>>
>> *202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>>
>>
>>
>> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Alexandre Arns Gonzales
Mestrando em Ciência Política (UFRGS/2014)
(51) 9942-4962
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170519/68b17eb8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 123103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170519/68b17eb8/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 118730 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170519/68b17eb8/attachment-0001.png>