[ncdnhc-discuss] Resolution on GAC

[KathrynKL at aol.com]

The recently proposed "Resolution on GAC" (attached below) raises some 
extremely important issues.  I am tremendously troubled by the proposals to 
reserve country names.  While I can understand -- and have heard the deep 
concerns expressed directly by ambassadors -- country names are not 
intellectual property.  Further, some country names are generic words for 
other types of goods -- like Turkey.  

Finally, the bypassing of the Names Council on a matter of domain name policy 
is unprecedented.  One arm of ICANN (the GAC) must surely talk with other 
arms of ICANN (the Names Council, GA and DNSO) before matters of this 
magnitude and nature are passed on to the ICANN Board.  

I support the NCC Resolution on GAC.

Warm regards, Kathy Kleiman 
ACM's Internet Governance Project

> 
> Resolution on the GAC September 9 2001
> Communique and the ICANN's Board's response
> 
> 1. Whereas: Supporting Organizations are defined in 
> ICANN's bylaws as "advisory bodies to the Board, with the 
> primary responsibility for developing and recommending 
> substantive policies regarding those matters falling 
> within their specific responsibilities" (Article VI, Section 
> 2 (b), and
> 
> 2. Whereas: Article VI, Section 2 (c) of the ICANN bylaws 
> requires the Board to "refer proposals for substantive 
> policies not received from a Supporting Organization to the 
> Supporting Organization, if any, with primary responsibility 
> for the area to which the proposal relates for initial 
> consideration and recommendation to the Board." and
> 
> 3. Whereas: the issue of country name reservations
> in new top-level domains is clearly a "substantive
> policy" regarding domain names and as such 
> falls within the the DNSO's area of responsibility:
> 
> Resolved, that the Noncommercial domain name
> holders constituency 
> 
> 1. Advises the staff and Board of ICANN that the 
> GAC communique of 9 September, 2001 raised
> substantive policy issues and should have been
> referred to the DNSO for initial consideration;
> 
> 2. Condemns ICANN Board resolution 
> 01.93, adopted in Montevideo September 10, 2001,
> as a violation of the ICANN by-laws;
> 
> 3. Rejects the President's Action plan as yet
> another violation of the Corporation's by-laws,
> for describing a process of policy making that
> bypasses the DNSO;
> 
> 4. Calls upon the GAC to respect ICANN's
> organic, bottom-up processes, and to 
> refrain from all attempts to set 
> domain name policy without going
> through the DNSO.
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20011026/bf9a1229/attachment-0001.html>