OK tis a day for error correction I guess I have had it pointed out to me that of course the ICANN Letter to the GAC is NOT a reply to the latest letter from GAC at all, but actually to their earlier ones... and there I was thinking that it was a very prompt reply => the dates had me confused *sigh* Sorry to have mislead any one... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 25 November 2010 10:15, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:

Obviously still tired form last few days typo in my note below changes the context completely Sorry...

SHOULD READ => "Excellent letter *from *the GAC in my view at least, re the ICANN response, the funny (not) thing is of course the GAC, ALAC and GNSO in their co-creation of the CWG aimed to offer by the action of the cross community activity and any agreements they might come up with was to offer to the Board exactly what PDT is asking for *sigh* and we all know how well that was managed...(and yes I use the term advisedly)...

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

On 25 November 2010 09:09, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com>wrote:

...

Excellent letter for the GAC in my view at least, re the ICANN response, the funny (not) thing is of course the GAC, ALAC and GNSO in their co-creation of the CWG aimed to offer by the action of the cross community activity and any agreements they might come up with was to offer to the Board exactly what PDT is asking for *sigh* and we all know how well that was managed...(and yes I use the term advisedly)...

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

On 25 November 2010 07:47, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

...

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@mindsandmachines.com> Date: 24 November 2010 14:57 Subject: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: morality issues To: soac-mapo <soac-mapo@icann.org>

For those not yet aware, there has been an exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN concerning the subject matter of this working group.

The GAC letter of Nov 22 (

http://icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush-22nov10-en.pdf ) suggests that there be "prior review" of applications, in order to give applicants an "early warning" that their TLDs might raise sensitivities. It does not say who should conduct these reviews, what the standards of review are, whether there would be any appeal, whether the determination of the reviewers was final, etc. etc. The GAC letter suggests that this is important in view of the principle of universal resolvability, noting that to date "there do not appear to be controversial top level domains that have resulted in significant or sustained blocking by countries." The letter does not explain why this is different than blocking of second-level domains by countries, which is a widespread practice.

The ICANN letter in response (

http://icann.org/en/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-dryden-23nov10-en.pdf ), sent the next day, is a compendium of how ICANN has addressed or is addressing outstanding issues. The issues concerning morality and public order are saved for the end of the letter (pages 9 and 10), and basically say to the GAC, we appreciate your input, but you need to suggest a way forward rather than just say you're unhappy with the outcome. Here's a couple of quotes from PDT:

"Various competing interests are involved, for example the rights of freedom of expression versus sensitivities associated with terms of national, cultural, geographic and religious significance. While freedom of expression is not absolute, those claiming to be offended on national, cultural, geographic or religious grounds do not have an automatic veto over gTLDs."

"I understand that some GAC members have expressed dissatisfaction with this process as it was first described in version 2 of the Guidebook. The treatment of this issue in the new gTLD context, was the result of a well-studied and documented process which involved consultations with internationally recognized experts in this area. Advice containing thoughtful proposals for amending the treatment of this issue that maintains the integrity of the policy recommendation would be welcomed. The expression of dissatisfaction without a substantive proposal, does not give the Board or staff a toehold for considering alternative solutions. While the report of the recently convened working group still does not constitute a policy statement as conceived in the ICANN bylaws, ICANN staff and Board are working to collaborate with the community to adopt many of the recommendations."

Antony _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy