And secondly questions to the At-Large List; 1. should we also record/ engage in further discussion/ debate on this specific topic of ICANN's scope (as it relates to the IRT report and new gTLD's in that wiki as well ? 2. Do you wish us to set up a 'Commons' associated with that Wiki Workspace to encourage and capture more discussion and debate from us all?
In the early days of ICANN (2000-2002), there were a bundle of discussions on the danger of mission creep. It was pointed out, "what is truly dangerous about ICANN is that it might use its power over the DNS chokepoint to enforce global policy on the use of anonymous remailers, on trademark law, on the exchange of pornographic information or copyrighted music files, or the rest of the policy issues that it has the power (if not, currently, the inclination) to address." http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/28/064529 Prevention of mission creep was confirmation by the PSC report. "Furthermore, while ICANN’s mission is narrow, it is fundamental and critical to the secure and stable operation of the Internet. The PSC believes that ICANN has a responsibility to be a discussion leader and raise awareness of issues linked to stability and security of the Internet. Broader interest and concern about security and stability issues is, in the view of the PSC, an important support to the core mission, but should not result in “mission creep." http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/improving-confidence.htm I do support Cheryl's suggestion on discussion of "commons". If ICANN cannot observe its narrow mission, it may be necessary to set up certain principles to preserve "commons" in this "global policy setting". With respect to IRT specifically, I assume we don't have to look at the ICANN bylaws or "principles" (if any). It has been very clearly stated by Avri, the Chair of GNSO, that it is beyond of the GNSO PDP and oringial gTLD implementation proposals submitted to the Board. No stakeholder should be allowed to subvert the PDP. If the ICANN governance is not satisfied with the outcome of PDP, it could send it back to GNSO for redrafting but could not insert something new on the top of it. Hong
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
One more point, which I wanted to write separately:
I've heard a lot of people say that Intellectual Property & the work of the IRT fell outside ICANN's scope.
Someone asked this specific question & Jonathan Cohen, Senior Partner at Shapiro Cohen replied that this was false: according to him, the ICANN bylaws & principles mention protection of Intellectual Property & Marks, and that therefore, the IRT's proposals fall completely *in line* with ICANN's *core mission*.
I'd be interested if this was confirmed/denied.
O. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Hong Xue, Ph.D. Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law Beijing Normal University 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China