[council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello All,


Just following up on a few posts on this topic.

(1) Board response to GAC letter 

- the Board next meets at its retreat in Norway on 24-25 September 2010

- I expect the GAC letter will be discussed there and potentially some
guidance provided to ICANN staff

- generally I have encouraged the Board to refer such matters to the
GNSO for comment/feedback, rather than the Board trying to come up with
its own solution

- the next formal Board meeting is on 28 October 2010.  It is possible
tat this meeting that the board might direct staff to finalize a final
draft of the DAG for public posting, and potential decision at the Board
meeting in Cartagena on 10 Dec 2010


(2) Timing

- it would be useful to get any GNSO input on the GAC letter prior to
the retreat on 24/25 Sept- especially if there are some concrete
suggestions that would avoid the issue being put into some sort of PDP
process for resolution



(3) Personal views

- just some personal comments

- I think it could be useful to use a term other than "morality & public
order"  which is a specific terms used in some international treaties,
but is not defined.   Potentially something like "illegal terms or terms
that relate to illegal activities in a majority of countries" might be
better language that better reflects the internet of recommendation 6.
I don't find the GAC language of 'controversial" to be helpful as what
is controversial is often related to a particular topic at a particular
time, rather than something that is related to an illegal activity.  e.g
Nuclear energy might be controversial at times in many countries due to
environmental concerns, but I see no reason why something like
.nuclearenergy should not be allowed.   Murder on the other hand is
illegal in most places, and so .murder might be something that could be
rejected UNLESS there is a very specific purpose that does not encourage
illegal activity (e.g a website to report information on murders for
police to investigate etc).


- the GNSO spent sometime on this issue - and there is quite a bit of
text in the final report that I think is not changed by the GAC advice
and is still current.  e.g. that there is an ability to raise a formal
objection in this area, and that a panel of judges would take into
account international treaties and international legal norms in this
area in making a decision.

- I think it is also important to note that recommendation 20 was
intended for objections related to cultural or religious terms e.g " An
application will be rejected if an expert panel
determines that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant
portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or
implicitly targeted."

- I think here could be some value in the GNSO providing a response to
the GAC letter to clarify the intend of the GNSO policy  - prior to
beginning some working group to suggest any changes.



Regards,
Bruce Tonkin