Draft Statement of NCUC on the Draft Applicant Guidebook

[Nicolas Adam]

I think Mary's points are valid, and i will just add: go team!
Thx Robin, Mary, Milton and everyone else who worked on this.

Nicolas

On 12/10/2010 11:56 AM, Mary Wong wrote:
> In principle and substance, yes - but I would feel more comfortable, 
> and believe it would be more effective, if the references to ICANN 
> staff (e.g. "as claimed by staff") were removed or at least reduced. 
> Similarly, I would suggest rewording the point about the "company who 
> provides the expert advice is also hired by ICANN" to something along 
> the lines of "the third party contracted to select the experts who 
> will determine the objection".
> Cheers
> Mary
>
> *Mary W S Wong*
> /Professor of Law/
> /Chair, Graduate IP Programs/
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
>
> Two White Street
>
> Concord, NH 03301
>
> USA
>
> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu <mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.edu>
>
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
>
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network 
> (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>
> >>>
> *From: * 	Drake William <william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH>
> *To:* 	<NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
> *Date: * 	12/10/2010 11:50 AM
> *Subject: * 	Re: Draft Statement of NCUC on the Draft Applicant Guidebook
>
> Sure
>
> Bill
>
> On Dec 10, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>> Here's the draft NCUC statement on the DAG and new gtlds.  Please let 
>> me know if you support it's submission.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> Draft Statement of NCUC on the Draft Applicant Guidebook
>>
>> NCUC supports the prompt introduction of new gTLDs, yet we are deeply 
>> concerned about a number of implementation proposals in the latest 
>> Draft Applicant Guidebook, however believe they can be fixed and the 
>> new TLD process can move forward.
>>
>> In particular, we are concerned that the Independent Objector (IO) 
>> process is ripe for abuse and harmful to the public interest. The IO 
>> was a staff created policy that was never discussed let alone 
>> approved by the GNSO.  We believe that it is entirely illogical that 
>> there can be a TLD that no community, religion, government, company, 
>> trademark holder, or individual in the world actually objects to – 
>> yet is “something we all agree is objectionable” as claimed by staff.
>>
>> Important safeguards to prevent abuse and “gaming” are lacking from 
>> the IO, as envisioned by staff.  For example, there is no requirement 
>> that an objection brought by the IO be tied to at least one specific 
>> party who claims it will be harmed if the TLD goes forward.  Such a 
>> requirement is necessary to achieve accountability in the new TLD 
>> process.
>>
>> Another feature missing from staff’s version of an IO is 
>> transparency.  ICANN staff has stated a number of times that the IO 
>> is intended to provide a secret means for governments to object to a 
>> TLD string without having to do so publicly.  For a public governance 
>> organization with transparency requirements, such a proposal for 
>> secret objections cannot stand.  If there must be an IO, actual 
>> objectors must come forward and be transparent about their role to 
>> prevent the new TLD.
>>
>> According the staff memo on so-called Morality and Public Order 
>> objections, one of the purposes of the IO is “risk mitigation” to 
>> ICANN (i.e. a forum to quietly kill controversial TLDs to ward-off 
>> ICANN’s ability to be sued in courts of law).  We do not support 
>> staff’s introduction of “risk mitigation strategy” as ICANN’s primary 
>> policy objective.  As always, the global public interest with respect 
>> to the DNS is ICANN’s primary obligation, not ICANN’s own corporate 
>> interest.
>>
>> As designed by staff, the IO lacks true independence.  The IO is 
>> employed by ICANN; likewise the company who provides the expert 
>> advice is also hired by ICANN, so there is a lack of neutrality on 
>> the part of the expert panel since they have an incentive to agree 
>> with the IO (ICANN) who hired it when they handle matters brought by 
>> the IO.
>>
>> On the issue of trademarks in the latest DAG, we are troubled by the 
>> elimination of sufficient time in which to respond to URS complaints 
>> in the latest DAG.  Re-working the negotiated community consensus 
>> from 21 to 14 days as a timeframe in which to respond is concerning 
>> as it provides inadequate protection to registrants, who may be on 
>> holidays and unable to find an attorney and respond in a reasonable 
>> period of time.
>>
>> We share the concerns expressed in the At-Large Statement on Draft 
>> Applicant Guidebook.  However, we believe the best course of action 
>> is to make the appropriate fixes to the policy to protect the global 
>> public interest and go forward with new TLDs in an expeditious manner.
>>
>>
>>
>> <NCSG stmt on rec6>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 <http://www.ipjustice.org/>     e: 
>> robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at 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 <http://www.ipjustice.org/>     e: 
>> robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch 
> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
>
> As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with 
> the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the *University of 
> New Hampshire School of Law.*Please note that all email addresses have 
> changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. 
> For more information on the *University of New Hampshire School of 
> Law*, please visit _law.unh.edu <http://law.unh.edu>_
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20101210/15504f77/attachment-0001.html>