Policy Principles List Discussion Update

[Joy Liddicoat]

Dear all,

Thanks for the positive responses to this discussion and your various
suggestions. To help keep the discussion flowing, I have below posted the
original suggestions with additions/comments in discussion. This is an open
dialogue and all comments are welcome.



Draft Principles and Summary of Discussion

.         NCSG prioritises the non-commercial, public interest aspects of
domain name policy.[No disagreement]

.         Guardianship: gTLD policy should be focused on responsibilities
and service to the community [Some concern about definition of 'community'
as well as that responsibilities may be used to override individual rights.
It was noted that this principle was based on RFC 1591 and further comments
sought. Question: any further views on this?]

.         Multi-stakeholder: gTLD policy should be determined by open
multi-stakeholder processes. [No disagreement but there was a suggestion
emphasis be on stakeholders' participation being equal, with no one
stakeholder being privileged over another.]

.         Human rights: gTLD policy should meet human rights standards,
including transparency and the rule of law. [No disagreement: some members
wanted to emphasise particular rights: privacy, freedom of expression and
freedom of association].

.         Equity: parties to domain registrations (including non-commercial
registrants) should be on a level playing field; domain registrations should
be first come first served ("FCFS"). [No disagreement with the first part,
but it was pointed out that in some cases there are legitimate reasons for
registration policies not to be FCFS (such as auctions, controlling name
policies). Question: should the reference to FCFS be removed or qualified in
some way?

.         Competition and choice: gTLD policy should ensure competition and
choice for non-commercial registrants and non-commercial internet users. [No
disagreement].

.         In case of conflict, the principle of guardianship prevails. [No
disagreement that there should be an overriding principle, but refer to
concerns raised above under principle of guardianship]

Some members suggested a further principle be added emphasising the end to
end decentralised infrastructure of the internet. A suggested principle here
might be:

.         The end to end design of the Internet should be maintained



Others suggested there be an emphasis on internet protocol address records
being public good in nature. Discussion on this is continuing on the list
with a reference to the CoE principles as well as a suggestion of an
economic analyses framing these as public goods and the importance of not
interfering with decentralised private activity at the end points.



Please join the conversation.



Regards







Joy Liddicoat

Project Coordinator

Internet Rights are Human Rights

www.apc.org

Tel: +64 21 263 2753

Skype id: joy.liddicoat

Yahoo id: strategic at xtra.co.nz



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111221/88403800/attachment.html>