[bc-gnso] Notes form GAC-GNSO joint meeting
sdelbianco at netchoice.org
Sun Mar 7 15:11:26 UTC 2010
Very promising meeting with GAC GNSO Council. GAC shares many of our BC
concerns about new gTLD program and EOI. And several GAC members agree that
the ITU should not encroach on ICANN¹s role in internet policy-making.
Meeting was chaired by Stephane van Gelder and Bertrand de La Chapelle
Stephane started with GNSO questions about new gTLD program:
> i. Do GAC members have any remaining concerns with respect to
> geographic and intellectual property protections?
> ii. The GAC proposed that some additional studies be conducted before new
> gTLDs are launched; what negative effects, if any, could be foreseen if such
> studies are not completed before the launch?
> iii. The GAC has questioned the desirability of a single fee structure for
> new gTLDs. How might variable fees affect market entry and the larger Internet
> environment? How would they impact the distribution and recovery of costs?
> iv. The GAC has raised a number of concerns about the suitability and
> time frame of the EOI model. Does it have specific suggestions as to how the
> model could be improved, or a superior alternative model to suggest?
Bertrand: Concerns at Second level more than at top-level. Concerns about
Post-delegation more than pre-delegation.
Zahid: BC filed minority report on STI because we think post-delegation RPMs
are inadequate. TM Clearinghouse requirement ends at sunrise. We thought
something was better than nothing and we wanted the process to move forward.
Mark (UK): Why are we spending so much time designing an EOI?
Zahid: if we invite objections to strings after EOI it would be unlimited
and unregulated. Even riskier than defending against objections during the
actual application. And we need more education for those in developing
nations about the EOI schedule.
Sweden: it's not a market analysis if it's mandatory. It's a pre-launch.
Stephane: the closer the EOI is to the first round, the more we question the
value of the EOI. If the rules must be final, do we need an EOI? If we
need an EOI, are the rules final enough?
Bertrand: This is promising for the week. We seem to be re-qualifying the
Debra Hughes (Red Cross): non-profits are concerned about EOI. Especially
in developing countries where non-profits don't know about it. Also need
to talk about fee structure and post-delegation measures against fraud and
Bertrand: if final DAG is a pre-condition for EOI, who's to decide when DAG
is final? Can one SO block it? Proposed that we could "Yellow" parts of
the DAG that have to be final. If EOI just deals with strings, we can yellow
just those DAG sections, for instance.
Stephane: moving to our question #3, regarding ICANN in the wider Internet
Environment. Here are GNSO questions for the GAC:
> i. Can GAC members explain the relationship to ICANN in general and
> to the GAC principles in particular of the ongoing intergovernmental
> discussions (e.g., in the ITU and CSTD) concerning Enhanced Cooperation on
> Globally Applicable Public Policy Principles?
> ii. Can GAC members help us to understand the objectives and prospects
> of the various other proposals that have been advanced in the ITU (some of
> which could be taken up by its October 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference)
> concerning such topics as the provision of registry services, the
> harmonization and coordination of ccTLD policies, internationalized domain
> names, the interface between international laws and treaties and Internet
> governance, security and stability, IPV6, dispute resolution, and so on?
Stefano (Italy): talked about IGF call for "Enhanced Cooperation". UN
will decide whether to renew IGF. Acknowledged that one-state-one-vote
creates unpleasant "market for votes".
Mark (UK): seeing lots of pressure from ITU to enter I-gov space. European
view is that would be beyond ITU mandate to lead in policy formation. ITU
wants to become a registry and to allocate IPv6 addresses, but EU states
will object and say ITUs mandate and skills do not support that move.
Unkown: IGF is part of the Tunis package on "enhanced cooperation". Both
will be discussed at CSTD. Last ITU Plenipot adopted resolution that ITU
has a role in internet policy setting.
Thomas (Germany): Enhanced Cooperation is a wide term and involves us all.
ITU's desire to be a registry should be discussed here in the GAC. Govts
elevated role here in ICANN should relieve pressure from ITU. At same time,
competition should make each stronger.
Fiona (US): ITU is 191 governments. What are GNSO concerns about the ITU?
You should go back to your own governments with your concerns.
Bertrand: Some actors in the ITU don't even want to hear the word ICANN.
Stephane: thank you for quality of answers today.
Bill Drake (NCUC): our questions are motivated by what we hear in
international fora. We don't really know which of these points are worthy
of our taking them on board. For instance, many govts are advocating
globally applicable principles, but what does that mean for ICANN? We'd like
to hear from govts who participate in both the ITU and ICANN.
Jamie Wagner: both have a role but one is primary and one is secondary.
ICANN is working now as a mechanism for enhanced cooperation.
Zahid Jamil (BC): we need to avoid making emerging governments feel left
behind by the ICANN process.
Nigeria: developing nations are given more prominence at ITU/UN. ICANN's
communications to developing nations is not as strong as ITU.
ITU is a treaty-making organization. ICANN is not.
ITU controls spectrum; ICANN controls IP. There must be a point of
Unknown: convergence of telecom and internet makes telecom regulators very
nervous. ITU nations feel ICANN has not given them the right answers.
ICANN vs ITU conflict will become livable once ICANN becomes more
internationalized and every govt participates equally in the GAC. Inside
ITU there is a difference of opinion about whether ITU should get into
Internet governance. I believe ICANN should handle IP numbers and DNS.
Bertrand: we've never had this kind of discussion between GAC and GNSO.
Please continue the dialog.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bc-gnso