[CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion

Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Mon Jan 18 20:36:55 UTC 2016


I'm not sure what Milton means either, but he's been consistent since WG-C
time that Cherokee polities have no recognizable right to their name, so as
an example of a "Purple Hat" test, suppose the GAC or some other SO/AC
were to "conspire to get ICANN to reject a community TLD applicant because
[the applicant is the Jeep divison of Fiat Chrysler] and doesn't "require its
registrants to" [be members of one of the three Federally Recognized
Cherokee polities], and suppose also that the CNO or the UKB or the ECN (or
more likely, all three acting jointly) are also a community TLD applicant,
and suppose both the Jeep division of Fiat Chrysler and the CNO+UKB+ENC
applications are for the string "cherokee", and finally, suppose that the
CNO+UKB=ENC application proposes to "force all its registrants to" show
their membership or interest in one of the constituent polities (the
"Purple Hat").

> [I]f ICANN has two similar competing applicants for the same TLD string,
> and GAC, ALAC, GNSO or whoever urges ICANN to choose applicant A over
> applicant B because A promises to force all its registrants to wear purple
> hats, then that should be challengeable via IRP as exceeding ICANN's mission. 

> Do we agree on that much? 

I trust the answer is a clear "No".

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon

[For the general reader, CNO refers to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
(though it recently dropped the "of Oklahoma" portion of its name), UKB 
refers to the United Kitowah Band, and ECN refers to the Eastern Cherokee

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list