Dear Friends:
I
speak here as the convening authority for The University of the West Indies
At-Large Structure within LACRALO. I can't recall ever meeting Susan Crawford. But
she has our common gratitude for these comments to her fellow ICANN Board members.
We wish it recorded that the UWI supports the position she took in this matter
and associate ourselves in full with her remarks.
We
also support the sentiments expressed by Joichi Ito in respect of his
suggestion that this vote demands another look at the “the raison d'etre and the existence of ICANN
and how it should progress.”
Kind
regards,
CIO
& University Director of IT
The
University of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: lac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:lac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:31 AM
To: Discussion for At-Large Europe
Cc: Africa Discuss; Asia-Pacific Discuss; NA Discuss; At-Large Worldwide; LAC
Discuss
Subject: Re: [LAC-Discuss] [EURO-Discuss] Transcript of the ICANN BoardRatifying
RALO MoUs
Let me share wit you something more substantive, Susan Crawford's
statement on her vote against the resolution killing .xxx, and in
particular, her opening concern about the non-elected nature of the
Board:
SUSAN CRAWFORD: As a board, we cannot speak as elected representatives
of the global Internet community because we have not allowed elections
for board members. This application does not present any difficult
technical questions, and even if it did, we do not, as a group, claim
to
have special technical expertise. ...
>>JOICHI ITO: I vote no against the resolution, and I would
like to
comment briefly. I think Peter, Susan and David have articulated most
of
the points. I would also like to point out that the discussions and
arguments about how we would end up by default becoming entangled in
the
content aspect of this is not sufficient reason for me to vote in favor
of this resolution. It is a reason to look at again, as Susan says, the
whole process of gTLDs but maybe even at a higher level the raison
d'etre and the existence of ICANN and how it should progress.
Susan's full statement is worth reading, so I've reproduced it below.
--Wendy
SUSAN CRAWFORD: I must dissent from this resolution, which is not only
weak but unprincipled. I'm troubled by the path the board has followed
on this issue since I joined the board in December of 2005. I'd like to
make two points.
First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it acts in an ad hoc
fashion in response to political pressures. Second, ICANN should take
itself seriously, as a private governanced institution with a limited
mandate and should resist efforts by governments to veto what it does.
I'd like to talk about the role of the board.
This decision whether to admit a particular non-confusing legal string
into the root is put before the ICANN board because, first, we purport
to speak on behalf of the global Internet community. And second, the
U.S. Department of Commerce defers to the judgments of that community
when deciding what to tell its contractor to add to the authoritative
root zone file.
As a board, we cannot speak as elected representatives of the global
Internet community because we have not allowed elections for board
members. This application does not present any difficult technical
questions, and even if it did, we do not, as a group, claim to have
special technical expertise.
So this is not a technical stability and security question.
It seems to me that the only plausible basis on which the board can
answer the question in the negative -- so could say a group of people
may not operate and use a lawful string of letters as a top-level
domain
-- is to say that the people affected by this decision have a
broadly-shared agreement that the admission of this string to the root
would amount to unjustifiable wrongdoing.
Otherwise, in the absence of technical considerations, the board has no
basis for rejecting this application.
Let me explain.
The most fundamental value of the global Internet community is that
people who propose to use the Internet protocols and infrastructures
for
otherwise lawful purposes, without threatening the operational
stability
or security of the Internet, should be presumed to be entitled to do so.
In a nutshell, everything not prohibited is permitted.
This understanding, this value, has led directly to the striking
success
of the Internet around the world.
ICANN's role in gTLD policy development is to seek to assess and
articulate the broadly-shared values of the Internet community. We have
very limited authority. And we can only speak on behalf of that
community. I am personally not aware that any global consensus against
the creation of a triple X domain exists.
In the absence of such a prohibition, and given our mandate to create
TLD competition, we have no authority to block the addition of this TLD
to the root. It is very clear that we do not have a global shared set
of
values about content on-line, save for the global norm against child
pornography. But the global Internet community clearly does share the
core value that no centralized authority should set itself up as the
arbiter of what people may do together on line, absent a demonstration
that most of those affected by the proposed activity agree that it
should be banned.
I'd like to speak about the process of this application.
More than three years ago, before I joined the board, ICANN began a
process for new sponsored top-level domains. As I've said on many
occasions, I think the idea of sponsorship is an empty one. All generic
TLDs should be considered sponsored, in that they should be able to
create policies for themselves that are not dictated by ICANN. The only
exceptions to this freedom for every TLD should be, of course, the very
few global consensus policies that are created through the ICANN forum.
This freedom is shared by the country code TLDs.
Notwithstanding my personal views on the vacuity of the sponsorship
idea, the fact is that ICANN evaluated the strength of the sponsorship
of triple X, the relationship between the applicant and the community
behind the TLD, and, in my personal view, concluded that this criteria
had been met as of June 2005. ICANN then went on to negotiate specific
contractual terms with the applicant.
Since then, real and AstroTurf comments -- that's an Americanism
meaning
filed comments claiming to be grass-roots opposition that have actually
been generated by organized campaigns -- have come into ICANN that
reflect opposition to this application.
I do not find these recent comments sufficient to warrant revisiting
the
question of the sponsorship strength of this TLD, which I personally
believe to be closed.
No applicant for any sponsored TLD could ever demonstrate unanimous,
cheering approval for its application. We have no metric against which
to measure this opposition. We have no idea how significant it is. We
should not be in the business of judging the level of market or
community support for a new TLD before the fact. We will only get in
the
way of useful innovation if we take the view that every new TLD must
prove itself to us before it can be added to the root.
It seems to me that what is meant by sponsorship -- a notion that I hope
we abandon in the next round -- is to show that there is enough
interest
in a particular TLD that it will be viable. We also have the idea that
registrants should participate in and be bound by the creation of
policies for a particular string. Both of these requirements have been
met by this applicant. There is clearly enough interest, including more
than 70,000 preregistrations from a thousand or more unique registrants
who are members of the adult industry, and the applicant has undertaken
to us that it will require adherence to its self-regulatory policies by
all of its registrants.
To the extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN
should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD makes a
valuable contribution to the namespace, I differ with them. I do not
think ICANN is capable of making such a determination. Indeed, this
argument is very much like those made by the pre-divestiture AT&T
in
like answering machines -- should be allowed. In part, because AT&T
asserted at the time that there was no public demand for them.
The rise of the Internet was arguably made possible by allowing many
foreign attachments to the Internet called modems. We established a
process for sTLDs some time ago. We have taken this applicant through
this process. We now appear to be changing the process. We should not
act in this fashion.
I would like to spend a couple of moments talking about the politics of
this situation. Many of my fellow board members are undoubtedly
uncomfortable with the subject of adult entertainment material.
Discomfort with this application may have been sparked anew by first
the
letter from individual GAC members Janis Karklins and Sharil Tarmizi,
to
which Ambassador Karklins has told us the GAC exceeded as a whole by
its
silence, and, second, the letter from the Australian government.
But the entire point of ICANN'S creation was to avoid the operation of
chokepoint content control over the domain name system by individual or
collective governments. The idea was that the
steward for other governmental concerns by staying in the background
and
overseeing ICANN's activities, but not engaging in content-related
control.
other countries about triple X are explicitly content based and, thus,
inappropriate in my view.
If after creation of a triple X TLD certain governments of the world
want to ensure that their citizens do not see triple X content, it is
within their prerogative as sovereigns to instruct Internet access
providers physically located within their territory to block such
content. Also, if certain governments want to ensure that all adult
content providers with a physical presence in their country register
exclusively within triple X, that is their prerogative as well.
I note as a side point that such a requirement in the
the first amendment to our Constitution.
But this content-related censorship should not be ICANN's concern and
ICANN should not allow itself to be used as a private lever for
government chokepoint content control.
>>VINT CERF: Susan --
>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: I am almost done.
>>VINT CERF: No, no, no. I was asking you to slow down. The
scribes are
not able to keep up with you. I think you want this to be on the
record.
>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: I do, and I will give it to them also in typed
form.
ICANN should not allow itself to be used as a private lever for
government chokepoint content control by making up reasons to avoid the
creation of such a TLD in the first place.
To the extent there are public policy concerns with this TLD, they can
be dealt with through local laws.
Registration in or visitation of domains in this TLD is purely
voluntary. If ICANN were to base its decisions on the views of the
Australian or
away its very reason for existence as a private non-governmental
governance institution.
So in conclusion, I continue to be dissatisfied with elements of the
proposed triple X contract, including but not limited to the rapid
take-down provision of Appendix S, which is manifestly designed to
placate trademark owners and ignores the many of the due process
concerns that have been expressed about the existing UDRP.
I am confident that if I had a staff or enough time, I could find many
things to carp about in this draft contract. I'm equally certain if I
complained about these terms, my concerns would be used to justify
derailing this application for political reasons.
I plan, therefore, as my colleague Peter Dengate Thrush has said, to
turn my attention to the new gTLD process that was promised for January
2007, a promise that has not been kept, in hopes that we will some day
have a standard contract and objective process that can help ICANN
avoid
engaging in unjustifiable ad hoc actions.
We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the basis of their
technical and financial strength. We should avoid dealing with content
concerns to the maximum extent possible. We should be opening up new
TLDs. I hope we will find a way to achieve such a sound process in
short
order. Thank you.
[ applause ]
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> Dear Colleagues:
>
> I thought I would provide you the text of the transcript from the
public
> Board meeting today that relates to the MoUs for the RALOs from
> Asia/Australia/Pacific, and
> at:
http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript-board-30mar07.htm
>
> ----
>
> VINT:
>
> Next item on the agenda has to do with the Regional At-Large
> Organization which has shown a substantial dynamic in the last 12
> months, rapid growth of ALSs and RALOs. One of our board members
has
> been long associated with the at-large community and I would like
to ask
> Roberto to introduce this motion.
>
>>>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, it is
true that I
> have been associated with the at-large community, and I would like
to
> make a comment before I read the motion, if I'm allowed.
>
> I think some of you remember the statement of Pedro related to the
> football, that the GAC football team has waited for him not to
play once
> to win the tournament.
>
> And I feel ALAC community has done this to me as well. They have
waited
> until I moved out, and then -- you know, and then they went ahead.
>
> But since I still feel part of this at-large community, although I
don't
> have mandate from the at-large community, I am really very happy
to see
> this happening and I'm glad that I've been given the honor of
presenting
> this motion.
>
> So I will go on and read the motion. With whereas -- I suppose I
can
> speed up a little bit because you have the text, right?
>
> Whereas, the ICANN bylaws, article XI, section 2, part 4 provide a
> process that allows individual Internet users to participate
> meaningfully in the work of ICANN, as the community known as
"at-large,"
> and; Whereas, groups representing individual Internet users
throughout
> the world have made outstanding progress in their work together,
> resulting in three regions concluding their negotiations on
creating
> memoranda of understanding with ICANN to create their Regional
At-Large
> Organizations, RALOs, and;
>
> Whereas, the three regions are the Asia/Australia/Pacific, the
African
> and the European regions, an achievement which represents a
considerable
> milestone in the development of the multistakeholder process which
is so
> fundamental to the work of ICANN, and;
>
> Whereas, the ICANN board wishes to recognize and applaud the
at-large
> community worldwide and especially in the African,
> Asia/Australia/Pacific and European regions for the achievement of
this
> milestone in their development, and;
>
> Whereas the board is pleased to highlight the fact that with the
> creation of these three RALOs, the At-Large Advisory Committee is
now
> composed of eight elected members and five Nominating Committee
members
> with only two remaining board-appointed members, and;
>
> Whereas, the general counsel's office have reviewed the draft MOUs
and
> determined they meet the requirements in the ICANN bylaws
establish for
> the formation of a RALO and advised that a 21-day public comment
period
> should be observed, and;
>
> Whereas, the African and European user groups have met as a part
of the
> ICANN Lisbon meeting and elected their representatives to the
At-Large
> Advisory Committee as a part of their work, allowing for the
diverse
> communities engaged in ICANN to be present to recognize this
> achievement, and;
>
> Whereas, the Asia/Australia/Pacific region are in the process of
> formally providing written confirmation of their consent to be
bound by
> the terms of their MOU with ICANN and shall formally sign the MOU
in a
> public ceremony at the October 2007 ICANN international meeting to
be
> held in the Asia/Australia/Pacific region, and;
>
> Whereas, the parties to the African and European MOUs composed of
ICANN
> and representatives of the at-large structures in the African and
> European regions, signed it at a public ceremony on Thursday 29th
March,
> 2007 at the Lisbon ICANN meeting, the execution of the agreement
on
> ICANN's part contingent upon final approval by the ICANN board
following
> completion of the public comment period, and;
>
> Whereas, the public comment periods for the African and
> Asia/Australia/Pacific concluded on the 28th March, 2007 and the
public
> comment period on the Latin America and the
> that on 4th January, 2007. Resolved, the board ratifies the memorandum
> of understanding with the European at-large structures on the same
basis
> under which it was signed, and;
>
> Resolved, the board gives its final approval to the memorandum of
> understanding between the at-large Latin America and
> and ICANN and, resolved the board gives its final approval to the
> memorandum of understanding between the at-large African region
and
> ICANN, and;
>
> Resolved, the board gives its final approval to the memorandum of
> understanding between the at-large Asia/Australia/Pacific region
and ICANN.
>
>>>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Roberto. Is there a second
for this
> motion? I see a second from Vanda. I'm sure that if Vittorio were
a
> voting board member, he would be eager to second this as well.
>
> Is there any further discussion of the motion? I'll ask for a vote
--
> oh, I'm sorry. Njeri.
>
>>>NJERI RIONGE: I just want to, you know, sort of
congratulate all those
> people who are involved in this process, because we now have an
African
> RALO which is actually going to help to bring people together and
I
> expect to and look forward to seeing more business constituency
> participation within the African community.
>
>>>VINT CERF: Alex, I saw your hand up and Peter also.
>
>>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. Vint, I think that if one
looks at the
> organizations which were actually participating in the signing or
in the
> announcements yesterday -- or in the announcements, because
Asia-Pacific
> will still be signed in a few months, it's remarkable and has to
go down
> on the record the diversity of types of organizations that are
coming
> together. The principles and the social functions of these
organizations
> are very different, yet they are coming together because they find
it
> important to represent the general user of the Internet in matters
that
> are general to ICANN. Mostly concerned of course we know related
to
> domain names but the stability of the Internet, first of all, and
also
> IP addresses and all other aspects of ICANN's work are attracting
this
> interest.
>
> I would further underline that many of the organizations coming
together
> in the at-large structures are chapters of the Internet Society.
This
> underlines, first, that there's an ongoing, growing level of
cooperation
> and shared interest with the society and the field which ICANN
covers.
> The goodwill that's coming together here is extremely important at
all
> levels, from the individuals to the chapters to the general
working of
> our groups, and it's continuing to validate so now we will also be
able
> to test the concept on which we have built the at-large
representation
> which is this Web of trust.
>
> There's an enormous number of similarities between the way the
at-large
> chapters are recognized and come together and, for example, the
ways in
> which ISOC chapters are created and recognized. It's very much
based on
> someone knowing someone having concrete positive or negative
provable
> references of the good work being done by some of these
organizations
> and people, and this Web of trust concept is the one that gives
me, as
> it has proven -- it gives me much encouragement to assist in
continuing
> this specific form of the at-large effort. It has taken time. We
can all
> complain that it has taken much time to finally get these
organizations
> built up and signing the MOUs, but that's also coming from the
concept
> itself and the ones it has got up some speed, as it is now, it's
sure
> that we can responsibly make sure that we address the concerns of
these
> communities that we -- as ICANN, as a board, and from staff go ask
not
> only for them to express themselves but go ask and consul!
>
> t explicitly on specific things, craft a specific program of work
that's
> geared to our better and better planning which includes now the
planning
> with the GAC, and which validates further -- and apologies for the
> reiteration here -- the work that we've been doing in the joint
working
> group, the work that's being done in the ALAC and so forth. It's
really
> this WSIS [non-English word] ALAC character of ICANN that is also
> extremely important and that should be underlined. The resolutions
that
> we've taken today, which are some of the most momentous ones in
the --
> in the history of ICANN are very well-grounded in this
multistakeholder
> approach. Every part of the community has expressed itself
repeatedly in
> a structured way, in it a way that has made sure that their voice
gets
> incorporated into the final resolutions, and the growth of this
ALAC
> part is very well connected to that aspect.
>
>>>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Alex. Any other comments? I
see Peter
> and then Francisco. Peter?
>
>>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I just wanted to add my
congratulations to all
> of those who have worked so hard over the last few years to bring
that
> to fruition, and it was a pleasure to be on stage with a glass of
> champagne yesterday at the time of the signing. I think a most
> appropriate ceremony. Well done.
>
>>>VINT CERF: Francisco.
>
>>>FRANCISCO DA SILVA: So thank you very much. I see that from
> to
> content and glad with it. The only thing that I'd note, that we
have
> three speaking -- Portuguese speaking in this board and we have no
> organization in this from any Portuguese speaking country in any
region,
> so I -- this is only to stimulate those of the Internet community
that
> are Portuguese speaking to adhere to this movement that is in the
> beginning and I have already yesterday spoken with someone from
> from
> we can help, I think I can speak on behalf -- I have not spoken
with my
> fellow Portuguese speaking, Vanda and Demi, but I think we are
open to
> helping and supporting what is needed. Thank you. And anyhow,
> congratulations and I hope this is only a first step to a more
rich -- a
> richer environment concerning the at-large.
>
>>>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Francisco. I see one more
comment from
> Vittorio. Yes.
>
>>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Very briefly, I just wanted to thank all
the board
> members for the support. Yes, it was a long and painful process.
It
> started over four years ago. It took a lot of time and effort by
not so
> many but not so few people, actually, and so I'm really glad we
are at
> this point. There's still a lot of open issues and things to be
done and
> -- but perhaps the thing I'd like to point out is that when we
started
> this, it was -- well, two years before the WSIS, I'd say, and we
looked
> a bit insane of this idea with continuing to involve final users
in
> so-called civil society, if you want, in ICANN, but time has
proven that
> perhaps the need that we were feeling at that point in time was
actually
> true, and in the end, I think it's been a great value for ICANN to
have
> this part of its structure in place during the last years. So I
think we
> -- we wanted to be one of the more forward-looking constituencies
of
> ICANN and I think we can continue to provide that value !
>
> as well.
>
>>>VINT CERF: Thank you very much. Are there any other
comments before we
> go to a vote? If you vote in favor of the resolution, we will be
> approving or ratifying a collection of MOUs that are integrating
the
> at-large structures into our organization.
>
> So let me call for a vote. All those in favor, please raise your
hand. I
> count one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten,
eleven,
> twelve -- I see Susan -- thirteen, fourteen, fifteen. Thank you
very
> much. Fifteen to zero, Mr. Secretary.
>
>
>
> --Regards,
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart
> Director, At-Large
> ICANN
> PO Box 32160
>
>
> Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011]
>
> Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135
> mobile: +44 (7774) 932798
> email:
> Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com /
> Skype: nashtonhart
> Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org
phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law,
Fellow,
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________
LAC-Discuss mailing list
LAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org