- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] POSTPONED: ALAC Monthly Teleconference for July
by Annette Muehlberg July 10, 2008

July 10, 2008

Sorry, but I am also not available at this time. Annette > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > Gesendet: 07.07.08 15:55:43 > An: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > CC: "alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [ALAC-Internal] [At-Large] POSTPONED: ALAC Monthly Teleconference for July > I regret that I will not likely be able to attend on July 22. I have > previously-scheduled plans. > > --Wendy > > At-Large Staff wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > The ALAC Vice-Chair decided to postpone the monthly ALAC teleconference > > scheduled for tomorrow at 1330 UTC. The meeting has been rescheduled to July > > 22nd at 1330 UTC. You will receive the agenda and a reminder for this > > meeting in due course. > > > > Regards, > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul > > ICANN At-Large Staff > > email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Internal mailing list > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > > ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > --

4 3

Google Caches Retain Stolen Data - Shouldn't ICANN require Googles registry shut down google until this is fixed?
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 10, 2008

July 10, 2008

All, Well seems Google has again been exposed for it's errant and inconsiderate as well as violation of privacy ways... Shouldn't ICANN request in the best interest of users to temporarily shut down Google until Google permanently fixes this and clearly demonstrates it has done so? Or does ICANN fear the mighty power of Google?!? How can members of the public, trust Google or ICANN if Google is allowed to continually disregard the publics privacy in light also of Google purporting to be now handling Electronic medical records and exposing users, especially the elderly, indigent children, and the disabled, or their families, to massive potential fraud and/or medical blackmail? And FWIW, where is DOC/NTIA, USDOJ, and DHS on this? I hope it is not "ho hum, twiddle my thumb"... I for one and very glad SANS at least, is on the job! >:) Perhaps they should be retained by ICANN, DOC/NTIA, USDOJ, and DHS in a mentoring program on a VERY long term basis. See from Sans: (July 7, 2008) Stolen sensitive personal data, including financial account information, have been found to linger in Google caches for months even after the server holding the stolen information has been disabled. Cyber criminals collect information through keystroke loggers and store the data on servers. When the servers are discovered, they are taken down, but the Google pages are not unless specific requests are made. A Google spokesperson said that in general, the company does not remove cached information, but that it eventually disappears on its own after the original source is no longer accessible. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/07/BUHR11CK6Q.DTL&… Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

FYI:New type of online scam. But yet not really all that new
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 9, 2008

July 9, 2008

All, A newly recognized, but not all that new online scam that you may want to make known. I've seen and been a victim of this scam myself. Remember, anyone can become a victim! It yet again demonstrates that some of our fellow users continue to be up to no good. >:( See: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/29625?netht=rn_070808&nladname=0… Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Proposed GNSO Top Level Implementation Plan
by At-Large Staff July 9, 2008

July 9, 2008

REMINDER: Please submit comments by 17 July 2008 http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#gnso-tlp Proposed GNSO Top Level Implementation Plan Explanation: At its 25 June 2008 meeting in Paris, France the GNSO Council voted to invite public comments on the 21 June 2008 version of the GNSO Improvements - Top Level Plan prepared by the GNSO Improvements Planning Team. The document contains some initial documentation on methods that can be followed in beginning the work required to transition from the current GNSO organization to the type of organization ultimately recommended by the ICANN Board - including the areas of process, operations and collaboration with other ICANN entities. Before any methods can be put into practice, the plan needs to be reviewed by the GNSO and the ICANN community at large and approved by the GNSO Council and endorsed by the ICANN Board. A copy of the document: can be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-improvements-top-level-plan-21jun08.pdf [PDF, 148K] See a web page with more information about the overall GNSO Improvements process here: http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/.

1 0

LA Times BLog: ACTA: Turning ISPs into enforcers
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 9, 2008

July 9, 2008

All, You may want to contact your ISP in this regard as well as your legal representative. I personally find this to be a very dangerous idea. It seems to have originated from organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA. http://opinion.latimes.com/bitplayer/2008/06/acta-turning-is.html Los Angeles Times - Home Blogs Bit Player - latimes.com ACTA: Turning ISPs into enforcers Riaa_logo Knowledge Ecology International, a group that seeks to reduce the control wielded by patent and copyright holders, recently posted a list of suggestions that the RIAA purportedly sent to the U.S. Trade Representative for what to include in the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Ars Technica's Nate Anderson took up the issue today, accusing the record companies of trying to disembowel the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. I checked the legitimacy of the Knowledge Ecology post with Neil Turkewitz, the RIAA's point man on such things, and he said it looked accurate. Not surprisingly, however, he offered a somewhat different take than Ars. Yet he acknowledged that some aspects of the RIAA's proposal for ACTA go beyond U.S. law on the enforcement of copyrights online. ACTA, which aims to establish a multinational standard for anti-piracy enforcement, has generated a fair amount of concern in the blogosphere because a) it's being negotiated in secret, as are all trade pacts, and b) some media outlets have suggested that it could lead to people's laptops and iPods being searched at the border. Here's the RIAA's position, according to the Knowledge Ecology post: Provide that competent authorities have the authority to initiate border measures ex officio, with respect to imported, exported, or in-transit merchandise suspected of being counterfeit or confusingly similar trademark goods, or pirated copyright goods, without the need for a formal complaint from a private party or right holder, and regardless of whether the relevant right that is being infringed is recorded with Customs otherwise registered. What that means is, border agents wouldn't have to wait for a complaint from Warner Bros. Studios to be on the lookout for a few hundred bootlegged DVDs of "The Dark Knight." U.S. border agents already search laptops at random and without warrants, yet it's hard to picture them spending the time and energy to catch people smuggling camcorded films on their iPods. Much more problematic is the RIAA's wish list for online enforcement. The suggestions would seem to shift the legal ground in favor of copyright holders on issues that remain in dispute in U.S. courts, and possibly on a few that have been settled here or in other countries. Two examples of the latter are suggestions to make manufacturers liable for products and services whose "predominant application" is aiding piracy -- a more onerous standard than the one the Supreme Court laid out in the Sony Betamax case -- and to insure that copyright holders have access to the data they need from ISPs to bring lawsuits -- a potential conflict with some European court rulings. In an e-mail, Turkewitz said the RIAA wasn't trying to make a wholesale shift in the balance of legal power. "The bulk of this section is devoted to trying to secure harmonization around fundamental US legal principles of secondary liability and contributory infringement, including adoption of the `induce' standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Grokster," he wrote (link added). The RIAA's proposal would also ratchet up the pressure on ISPs and search engines to weed out infringements. According to the Knowledge Ecology post, one RIAA suggestion would require ISPs "to employ readily available measures to inhibit infringement in instances where both legitimate and illegitimate uses were facilitated by their services, including filtering out infringing materials, provided that such measures are not unduly burdensome and do not materially affect the cost or efficiency of delivering legitimate services." Another would require them to clamp down on or banish repeat infringers. The RIAA and MPAA have pressed U.S. courts to oblige ISPs to police their networks, but judges haven't exactly agreed. Wrote Turkewitz, "The Supreme Court in Grokster suggested that in the appropriate circumstances, an entity that is aware of the fact that they are facilitating piracy may assume an obligation to filter, although there is clearly no separate and independent legal obligation to do so. Likewise, termination of a repeat infringer may or may not form a part of an ISP's current responsibility." To Turkewitz, the point isn't to turn ISPs into copyright cops ("No one is suggesting that ISPs monitor their networks," he said in an interview). It's to address rampant online piracy in a more efficient way than the broad measures ISPs currently use, such as traffic shaping. Similarly, having ISPs notify suspected infringers could actually reduce the amount of enforcement done, Turkewitz said, by educating Internet users about copyright law. Yet there's no magic bullet to identifying and stopping pirated material as it's traveling from one PC to another online, at least not yet. Even if ISPs could automatically identify when a song was being transmitted, technology alone can't discern an infringement from a likely fair use (e.g., a parody or a transfer among family members). And one non-trivial problem with the notice and escalating penalties idea is that it can be hard to identify who actually was using a particular broadband account when an infringement occurred. IP addresses can be faked, wireless routers can be hijacked. But Turkewitz was not deterred. "You can deal with all of those issues," he said of the potential notification problems. "I think the critical thing is that you canât let everything just stop forward motion. There are always issues. You have to advance in a reasonable way, and be flexible and accommodating in making sure all reasonable expectations are met." "Reasonable," "flexible" and "accommodating" aren't words often used in connection with the RIAA's campaign against individual file-sharers. But while the RIAA may be the most aggressive in trying to stop piracy by individual Internet users, it's hardly alone in seeking to force ISPs to play a greater role in protecting intellectual property. "This is early in the ACTA process, and we have no idea how this will develop," Turkewitz wrote. "Does RIAA want the parties to discuss the role of ISP's in the fight against piracy? Absolutely. How can you talk about fighting piracy in 2008 without talking about a key aspect of this challenge?" He added, "Having said that, there is zero chance that the [U.S. government] would agree to a binding obligation on an issue of this magnitude without the consent of Congress -- and most importantly for present purposes -- we are not asking them to do so.... Our submission to the US negotiators should certainly not be construed as asking the US to legislate. These are some of our ideas about how to enhance enforcement." Addendum: Having talked about ACTA entirely in the context of pirated entertainment, I neglected to make a point that bloggers often overlook about contemporary piracy. There's much more at stake than just music and movie industry profits. All sorts of branded products -- medicines, batteries, auto parts, toys, apparel, etc. -- have become targets for counterfeiters. In some cases, those fakes pose a real risk to health and safety. That's why there's broad support from U.S. industry for a crackdown, as evidenced by the involvement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. There are also complex issues involving how developing nations compete, but that's a subject for an even longer post. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Domain Name Warehousing - No rules, why not?
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 8, 2008

July 8, 2008

All, ICANN Not Enforcing Rules Against Registrar Warehousing Because There Are No Rules July 6th, 2008 Now I wonder when new gTLD's and especially IDN gTLD's begin to be introduced, how and what will be done or considered to thwart this ugly and regressive practice? Will ICANN drag it's feet yet again in accepting proposals in doing away with this practice by registrars and registries? In any event, if you want to get some action on this bad business practice by registrars and registries, you can let ICANN know at raa-consultation(a)icann.org. Regards, Art. ref.: http://www.thedomains.com/2008/07/06/icann-not-enforcing-rules-against-regi… Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Icann Summit
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 8, 2008

July 8, 2008

Sylvia and all, INEGroup in over 100 countries is already "As One" and always has been. Maybe somday the RALO's as you say, will set aside their petty bickering, interpersonel attacks and be a real force for good. But like Google, I don't see the seeds of this desire yet planted, if even avaliable. Good luck in your quest. It is a good an nobel one. Never give up! sylvia-internautabrasil wrote: > ... Imagine there's no countries > It isn't hard to do. > > You may say I'm a dreamer > But I'm not the only one > I hope someday you'll join us > And the world will be as one... > > > > On March 2009 we will confirm John Lennon's words. > > Imagine there's no 5 Ralos > > It isn't hard to do > > on March'09 you will join us > > and ALSs world will be as one. > > This is The Opportunity, we have been waiting to change Internet's world. > And we still have time to get to know each other before the meeting. > > An idea: Introduce your self. Let others know in an informal way what your > ALS do! > > Let's work together! > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > ___ > > Sylvia Herlein Leite > > internauta Brasil > > www.internautabrasil.org > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------------------------------Spanish Version > > Imagina que no hay países > no es difícil de hacer ... > > Puedes decir que soy un soñador > pero no soy el único > espero que algún día te unas a nosotros > y el mundo vivirá como uno > > En Marzo 2009 confirmaremos las palabras de John Lennon. > > Imagina que no hay 5 Ralos > > no es dificil hacerlo. > > en marzo'09 nos reuniremos > > y todas las ALSsdel mundo serán como una sola > > Esta es la Oportunidad que estabamos esperando para cambiar la Interntet > mundial. Y aun tenemos tiempo para conocernos entre todas las ALSs antes de > esa fecha. > > Una idea: preséntate! Hazlo informalmente y di qué es lo que tu organización > hace! > > ¡Vamos a trabajar todos juntos! > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > ___ > > Sylvia Herlein Leite > > internauta Brasil > > www.internautabrasil.org > > > > Assinatura_Sylvia_Internautabrasil > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

News gTLDs and e-mail
by Patrick Vande Walle July 8, 2008

July 8, 2008

There is an interesting discussion currently on the IETF list about the consequences of the approval of the new gTLD process by ICANN. One possible issue may be with vanity gTLDs like apple, ebay etc. In this context, an email address may just be user@tld This may be confusing to email clients and MTAs which try to be "smart". Currently , the current standard is defined in RFC 2821 as such: 2.3.5 Domain A domain (or domain name) consists of one or more dot-separated components. [...] The domain name, as described in this document and in [22], is the entire, fully-qualified name (often referred to as an "FQDN"). A domain name that is not in FQDN form is no more than a local alias. Local aliases MUST NOT appear in any SMTP transaction. Hence, if either the mail client or the MTA expect to see a dot in the domain name and there is none, its behaviour may be unpredictable. The new gTLD context is addressed in the draft RFC2821bis, which states: 2.3.5. Domain Names A domain name (or often just a "domain") consists of one or more components, separated by dots *if more than one appears*. (emphasis added) Unfortunately, the current implementations are based on the original RFC2821, not the revised draft. There may be a lot of software out there that would treat user@tld as a local e-mail address (ie not FQDN). I am not aware of any study by SSAC on that matter (pointers appreciated). Where I think it matters for the user community is that we actually expect our e-mails to complaints@ebay or support@apple to be delivered. I see here an opportunity for the ALAC to ask ICANN for a report on this. Patrick

8 16

[Reminder] ALAC Monthly Teleconference @ Tue 8 Jul 13:30 – 15:00 ()
by Google Calendar July 7, 2008

July 7, 2008

alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, this is a reminder for Title: ALAC Monthly Teleconference Time: Tue 8 Jul 13:30 – 15:00 (Time zone: GMT (no daylight saving)) Calendar: Description: Please see https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?2008 for all meeting agendas, minutes, recordings and other details of ALAC's meetings. Start time 1330 UTC. You can view this event at http://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NmFwMmlsdWNodmR1aXA0ZH… You are receiving this courtesy email at the account alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively, you can sign up for a Google account at http://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.

1 0

ICANN Board Approves Censorship Policy for Domain Names Based on Morality: 2 Board Members Speak Against It]
by Jacqueline A. Morris July 7, 2008

July 7, 2008

FYI Robin Gross wrote: > > 26 June 2008 -- Update on Keep the Core Neutral Campaign > > *ICANN Board Approves Censorship Policy for Domain Names Based on > Morality: 2 Board Members Speak Against It* > > Today in Paris the ICANN Board passed the GNSO's controversial > recommendations > <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/council-report-to-board-pdp-new-gtld…> to > censor top level domains based on notions of "morality and public > order", and broadly defined "community" wishes. > > However, 2 ICANN board members, law professors Wendy Seltzer (on > behalf of the At-Large Internet Users) and Susan Crawford, made very > powerful and compelling statements to protect free expression on the > top level of the Internet. Hopefully Professor Crawford is right and > this harm can be mitigated through narrowly tailored implementation. > > However, ICANN staff member Kurt Pritz, who is charged with > implementing these global prohibitions on expression, said this week > in Paris that he strongly favors permitting anyone in the world to > object to a new GTLD based on morality and public order and that will > be staff's recommendation to the board. Not exactly "narrowly > tailored" as Professor Crawford is urging from staff. > > The domain name applicant's freedom of expression rights are "outside > of scope" of this exercise, according to Pritz in a recent new GTLD > briefing meeting. Perhaps ICANN staff forgot about the GNSO's > Principle G to protect the applicant's freedom of expression rights? > > Another problem with ICANN staff's implementation plan is to > auction-off of the most sought after domains and hold "beauty > contests" to decide which applicant "provides more value to the DNS". > Pritz said he could not say how "value" is defined in this analysis > however. > > There should be another opportunity for the public to provide comment > to ICANN on this proposal. > > The statements of Professors Seltzer and Crawford are below. > > Thank you, > Robin > > ----- > > 26 June 2008 ICANN Board Meeting -- transcript extracts: > > >>WENDY SELTZER: Thank you, Peter. > So the at-large, as registrants and as users of domain names, > supports the introduction of new gTLDs. Has no interest in delaying > that process, but does wish to express its concern about two of the > recommendations in the GNSO recommendation set. Specifically, the > morality and public order objection and the objection based on > community objections. > And ALAC and its RALOs, in discussion during this meeting, put > together a statement, which I won't read in its entirety, but > expressed concern that putting these criteria into the gTLD approval > process, even as opportunities for objection, injects ICANN into the > business of making morality and public order decisions, or injects > that into ICANN's processes in a way that, as ALAC put it, debases the > ICANN process. And at-large does not want to see ICANN put into the > business of adjudicating or even delegating the adjudication of > morality or public order or community support. > And so we hope that in implementation, these criteria can be kept > sufficiently narrow so that they are both administrable and > understandable and so that they do not involve ICANN, the > organization, in making, or allowing to be made, determinations about > any claim to generally accepted morality principles. > Thank you. > [ Applause ] > > > > >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. > I have mixed feelings on this day. I have long supported the entry > of new gTLDs into the root. It has seemed to me that it's > inappropriate for ICANN to use its monopoly position over giving > advice about the existence of new TLDs to create artificial scarcity > in TLDs, where there is no natural scarcity, in my view. > And that has led to a great deal of pent-up demand for the creation > of new TLDs for various reasons, for communities, for new identities, > all over the world. > And in particular, it is urgent that we create IDN gTLDs for the many > language communities around the world that would prefer to have those. > The question presented to the board today is a little strange. > What we're being asked to respond to is whether the recommendations, > the policy recommendations from the GNSO are implementable. And then > staff will go on, and if we decide they are, theoretically, > implementable, will draft the implementation guidelines for the > recommendations made by the GNSO council. > There is a lot of important effort to go into those implementation > details. And I am signing up to these recommendations on the > condition that the implementation work will proceed as planned, and > that the board and the community will have an opportunity to comment > in detail on that implementation work. > In particular, I want to applaud and underline what Wendy Seltzer > just said about the morality and public order recommendation, > recommendation number 6. > Way back when ICANN was formed, that original MOU, which we're now > talking about as the JPA, talked of transitioning the management of > the Domain Name System to the private sector. > And the idea was to figure out whether the private sector had the > capability and resources to assume the important responsibilities > related to the technical management of the DNS. So that was the question. > And so the creation of ICANN, and the question before all of us, was > whether this entity would be a good vessel for allowing the private > sector to take the lead in the management of the Domain Name System. > And, in fact, the white paper in 1998 said that while international > organizations may provide specific expertise or act as advisors to the > new corporation, the U.S. continues to believe, as do most commenters, > that neither national governments acting as sovereigns nor > intergovernmental organizations acting as representatives of > governments should participate in management of Internet names and > addresses. > Of course, national governments now have, and will continue to have, > authority to manage or establish policy for their own ccTLDs. > This wasn't done out of enthusiasm for the free market alone. The > idea was also to avoid having sovereigns use the Domain Name System > for their own content, control, desires. To avoid having the Domain > Name System used as a choke point for content. > Recommendation 6, which is the morality and public order > recommendation, represents quite a sea change in this approach, > because the recommendation is that strings must not be contrary to > generally acceptable legal norms relating to morality and public order > that are recognized under international principles of law. That's the > language of the recommendation. > Now, if this is broadly implemented, this recommendation would allow > for any government to effectively veto a string that made it > uncomfortable. > Having a government veto strings is not allowing the private sector > to lead. It's allowing sovereigns to censor. > Particularly in the absence of straightforward clear limits on what > morality and public order means, people will be unwilling to propose > even controversial strings and we'll end up with a plain vanilla list > of TLDs. > So I am unhappy about this recommendation. I am willing to vote for > it on the strength of the board's discussion and the staff's > undertakings that the standards for this recommendation will be > narrowly stated. > And on my expectation that the board and the community will have an > opportunity to review and approve, or not, the details of those standards. > We do have some global norms of morality and public policy. They are > very few. One of them is incitement to violent, lawless > action. Nobody wants that around the world. > A second might be incitement to or promotion of discrimination based > on race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. > And the third might be incitement to or promotion of child > pornography or other sexual abuse of children. > Otherwise, the question of morality and public order varies > dramatically around the world. It's a diverse, complicated world out > there. And it may not be -- it should not be possible to state that > there is a single standard of morality and public order around the world. > So I am asking that staff come back with an express standard that's > constrained to stated norms, like the three I just listed, found and > expressly in their national treaties. We need clear lines of > adjudication. And I would be content with that kind of implementation. > Another concern of mine is with -- with this list of recommendations > is recommendation 20 which says, "An application will be rejected if > an expert panel determines that there is substantial opposition to it > from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be > explicitly or implicitly targeted." > It's quite unclear how it's all going to work out, whether any > generic applicant could ever win over a community, could ever succeed > in contention for a string over a community that says it's a > community. And I look forward to many more details on this > recommendation as well. > And finally -- and I'm sorry to speak at such length but I think it's > an important moment. Finally, I'm not happy with the idea that there > will be auctions on strings for which there is more than one > applicant. And I note that the GNSO's own recommendations on this > subject don't mention auctions. And I hope the board will not adopt > this approach. > My bottom line is I will vote for this set of recommendations, and I > hope that the implementation will be sensible. > Thank you. > [ Applause ] > > >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Susan. > > -------- > > More Info: > http://ipjustice.org/wp/campaigns/icann/gtlds/ > http://www.keep-the-core-neutral.org/ > > ALAC statement: > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?new_gtld_document_recommendation_6_draf… > > -------- > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org > <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org > <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > > >

13 37