[ICANN Brussels
GAC Plenary
Meeting with ALAC
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Good morning, everyone. If we could take our
seats, we'll get started. Thank you.
Okay. So let's begin. My name is Heather Dryden. I'm the Canadian
GAC representative and now the interim GAC chair.
Janis has asked me to moderate this session, along with Sébastien
Bachollet from the ALAC.
The ALAC has proposed for this meeting today -- Could we please take
our seats.
Thank you.
-- has proposed that we discuss today the DAG 4, in particular,
morality and public order. And this fits well with the discussions
that we just had in the GAC where we were discussing the same subject.
So I'll allow Sébastien to introduce himself and make a proposal on
how to continue.
>>SÉBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Thank you very much.
We appreciate very much to have this opportunity to exchange with the
GAC members as at-large. I would like to make one quick introduction
with one slide to show you the organization we are working with. And
it shows you that as the GAC, we really cover the world. We're
organized in five regions. Each region elects two people to the At-
Large Advisory Committee, and we get one from each region coming from
the NomCom. And our goal is to try and we hope we can have some help
from your country to try to have at least one at-large structure in
each and every structure. It will be a dream, but let's try to
fulfill it.
Now to go back to the substance, we really would like to discuss with
you the DAG 4, and, more particularly, as the first item, MOPO, as
Suzanne said the other day. I don't know if it's a registered
trademark yet, but I want to give her the credit of this acronym.
And I think we would like to introduce the subject, and I would like
to give the floor to Evan Leibovitch.
>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Thanks, Sébastien. At the At-Large Summit that
took place in Mexico City ICANN meeting, there was a working group
struck from at-large to debate issues regarding the gTLD creation.
There were two substantive issues, one of which had to do with cost of
access in some communities. That issue is being tackled by a separate
group that in fact has a workshop going on tomorrow. But the other
one was morality and public order, which was universally objectionable
within at-large.
Upon subsequent meetings, including some significant activity that
happened in Nairobi, we originally met together with the GAC and in
fact had a small subgroup that met together which we had our eyes
opened and found that the current objection-based process is probably
not much better-liked here than it is within ALAC.
So we come to you today with the hope of trying to resolve this in
such a way that recognizes that there are some universally
objectionable strings, but tries to deal with their implementation in
a way that isn't as wide-reaching and potentially confrontational and
onerous as the current objection-based system.
And so the idea of going back perhaps to what was originally conceived
for this, which was creation of a list of restricted strings, that
things, in order to get put on this list, would have to be universally
objectionable on certain grounds, with a specific method to put
strings on and to take strings off and do it that way before the fact
of application rather than do it as an objection-based process, which
is the way the DAG approaches it.
So that's essentially the approach we'd like to talk to you about, is
essentially trying to deal with this in a manner we think will work
better and still accomplish the goals of identifying strings that we
believe to be universally objectionable.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Thank you, Evan. Would anyone on the GAC side
like to react to those comments?
Please, Pakistan.
>>PAKISTAN: Thank you very much.
I think a very quick comment would be that, yes, the idea is fine to
have a predefined list, but that should not close the door to have a
mechanism where we can object later. Because, you see, it is, no
matter how exhaustive you make a list, there's always a possibility,
in most likelihood, that objectionable strings could make their way
in. So I think that would be the only comment I have that -- whereas
in principle, that may be the default to have a predefined list, but
have the door open for appeal later on.
Thank you.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Alan, please.
>>ALAN GREENBERG: I may be the only one in the room who actually
took part in the discussion that ended up with what we have right now.
The concept of a list I'm not sure would work. The concept of
subjects, I mean, may work, because any specific list, you can always
come up with variants of it which aren't on the list but have the same
intent.
The rationale for the current morality and public order words there,
as flawed as they are, the rationale was, if you have an objection
process, you need to give the people who are going to adjudicate the
objection some basis for making their decisions. And what you see in
the applicant guidebook right now was an attempt to have -- to define
what rules the adjudicator would use.
So the real issue is, if that's not the right words to define those
rules, what are?
When we went through that process three or four years ago, there was
-- we went through many iterations. Maybe we need to go back and look
at the second to last iteration. Maybe it was better. But it was an
attempt to find some rules which could be used in the decision-making
process after the objection.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: France, please.
>>FRANCE: Thank you.
As those who were here earlier, we already had a first round of
discussion in the GAC on this.
I think the more I think about it, the more there is a very, very
strong distinction between two very different things. One is a given
string not in the root at all because it has been deemed unacceptable,
whatever the process is. Another thing is a string that is acceptable
for some and not acceptable for others would maybe get in the root,
but there still would be always the legal right and the legal capacity
for one country, for instance, to say, "I don't give access at all to
this whole TLD in my country."
Let me say that actually the second case could also apply for a given
ISP that says, "Well, I want to protect whatever concept my clients
have, and I promote my access to the Internet as being not that."
So these are two different concepts. Because not getting something in
the root, we can have two extremes. One is as soon as one actor,
let's say, for instance, one government says, "I have an objection,"
then it's out of the root. That's one extreme. And I say one
government. It could be one other actor.
The other extreme is, anything gets in the root as long as there's no
technical danger for the system, there is no objections on the other
grounds of trademark or -- or previous rights or confusing similarity
and so on. And everything to deal with objectionable words is dealt
with at the national filtering level, let's say.
If you really try to think about the two extremes, they are not really
satisfactory, because they are either too open or too closed or -- it
really doesn't work.
The second element -- But the distinction is clearly that. There
will always be the sovereign right of one country to adopt blocking.
And there will always be a desire to enter in the root as many things
as possible and hope for universal accessibility for what is in the
root.
One thing that came to mind -- and I would be happy to have feedback
on -- is, there is some similarity with the problems or the solution
that has been found in the dialectic between article 19 and 29 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When you think about it, there
is a sort of underlying principle that seemed to emerge that we all
want and have almost as a principle that anything that is in the root,
in principle, should be accessible in all countries, and that any
blocking or any limitation regarding content should be done at the
most granular level to limit as little as possible the -- the access
to information.
And if you look at the way article 19 and article 29 function, what
article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says is, there
can be limitations to access to information and whatever, provided it
is done by law and that it is for the purpose of guaranteeing access,
or -- surprise, surprise -- for purpose of morality and public order
in a democratic society.
And so what is here as a tension is that we don't know whether there
are, indeed, universally objectionable strings. I'm not even sure
that there are really things that would be so unacceptable by
absolutely everybody. But let's suppose that there are. Maybe the
question is, is there a way to formulate those? Is it, as Evan was
saying, is it a finite list? Is it a type of subject?
It's likely to be very complex.
So having something that does not get into the root because it is so
universally objectionable is, I think, rather unlikely also, because
somebody who is launching a TLD has no interest of being blocked in
every single country where he will be trying to reach people.
What about a mechanism that says -- or what about exploring a
mechanism that says there is actually very, very few or even no
limitation on the question of morality and public order regarding
entry in the root itself -- I'm explore hearing -- entry in the root
itself. The only criteria are about stability, about who has the
right to run the TLD, and that's all. And that on the other hand, any
country -- if we take countries -- that wants to block a whole TLD has
to do it clearly through a legal procedure according to very specific
criteria that are explicitly explained. So an element of visibility
and transparency in the process.
And, three, when the application is being made, what about a mechanism
that would allow for a period relevant governments to tell the
applicant, "Listen, if you apply for that very string, it is so
offensive for me that I tell you I will take a national law to block
it on my territory. If you change the label in one way or the other
to make it less offensive, then it will remain accessible and we will
do the filtering for the content of the lower level." Because there
will always be a challenge.
I give you a very concrete example. We've been talking about dot Nazi
forever. How should we treat a dot NSDAP? NSDAP is the name of the
party. It's the same. And it could be a very valid TLD for
historians who are dealing with the study of the second world war.
And so in France, for instance, depending on whether NSDAP is used for
hosting hate speech and promotion of Nazi memorabilia and things or if
it is for the study of those things, it will be treated completely
differently.
So just to give a framework, we are really exploring at that stage.
And I would be happy to get feedback from friends in ALAC.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Thank you, France. I have European Commission
and then Alan.
>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you.
I want to express some caution, actually, about an idea which emerged
in our earlier session. And some of you may have been here. But I
hope you'll forgive me for repeating it for those who weren't. That's
the idea emerging about the fact that countries could perhaps block
top-level domains at the national level.
I wouldn't dispute that they have a legal right to do that. But what
I would propose or suggest to you is it won't take them long before
they realize they can also add top-level domains at the national
level.
If they have their own version of the root zone file which they're
disseminating -- actually, I would be happy to be contradicted --
they'll realize they can add some. We can lead to a situation where
countries realize they can have conflicting top-level domains. I can
have one version of dot phish, and you can have another one.
What I'm cautioning against here is that if the patient has a problem,
we should make sure that the cure for that problem doesn't kill the
patient. The patient here, of course, is the universal resolvability
of the root, something that I think is very precious to those who
understand why the Internet has been successful to date.
And I just hope that in ten years' time, we don't look back at the
last 20 years of being a golden age of the Internet where there was
universal resolvability, and in order to solve this specific problem
we have here now that we abandon that. So that's a personal view in
some ways, actually. But I know it's shared by some other members.
But I really do find the prospect of that part of the solution to this
problem might be that countries choose to start a process of running
their own version of the root zone file is something I find quite
worrying. Thank you.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Thank you for that.
Alan.
>>ALAN GREENBERG: That intervention was a great lead-in to what I
was going to say, or it could have been the other way around.
The concept was discussed reasonably extensively at the last go-round
when the GNSO was looking at the issue. That was a time when there
was a lot of discussion of there being -- of people setting up
alternate roots. And to be candid, the issue was discussed. I think
I was one of the ones who raised it, as a matter of fact. And the
concept of in an ICANN document we even talk about the concept of
countries filtering out top-level domains and essentially setting up
multiple roots was deemed to be so offensive that it wasn't something
we were willing to do at all, even though it was a viable way of
addressing the problem. So history keeps on going around.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Evan.
>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: I wanted to speak in support of what Bertrand was
saying and add that there is already a sort of precedent within the
framework of getting new TLDs. And that is the trademark
clearinghouse, that when somebody is submitting a string, that it has
-- that the proposal is that it go through a clearinghouse, and that
the clearinghouse provide advice back to the applicant of how likely
it is that their string is going to be rejected based on trademark
grounds.
So we already have something where there is a process of putting
forward a string, getting advice back on that string of what is likely
to happen should you proceed on it, and then it is up to the applicant
to decide whether or not they want to go forward taking the risk or to
rethink what they're doing.
So I do think -- I very much like what you were suggesting and would
comment that there is already mechanisms within ICANN on issues such
as trademark where the same -- where a similar approach is being
taken.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Any reaction to that proposal?
Brazil, please.
>>BRAZIL: Thank you.
From our perspective, it brings a little bit of concern leaving the
final decision of going forward with the controversial gTLD, leaving
this decision with the applicant itself, because this can go to a kind
of judgment regarding the capacity or the size of the market or
Internet users in the country or the community that are -- that is
offended. And it may cause a unequal relation of power on the
Internet.
So we believe that the consensus and criteria that could be developed
on a consensus basis through all countries may be a better way to deal
with this complicated issue. So we agree we need further time for
discussion about this question.
Thank you.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Any further comments?
We haven't solved it yet, so....
Please. Adam.
>>ADAM PEAKE: I was wondering, many governments around the table.
You are sponsors of ccTLDs. So how do you deal with this issue at the
ccTLD space that you have sort of control over in many ways? I mean,
what policies do you have on morality and public order, if any? And
if you don't, well, why the concern in the gTLD space? But, more
importantly, what lessons can we learn from how you do implement this
in your own ccTLD areas?
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: I see someone in the audience.
Please. Oh, yes, Greece.
>>GREECE: In Greece, the national regulatory authority that's
responsible for telecommunications and domain names approves every
domain name before it is actually registered. So the ccTLD is one,
and there is no question of approving the string for the ccTLD. This
has been here. This is dot GR.
But there is a procedure as it is out of the Greek national law in
telecommunications by which, in a very quick way, this takes less than
a week, all domain name applications are looked at and are approved by
the NRA. The experience here is that we will probably not approve a
very small number. Why not out of 10,000 -- that is just a figure.
And sometimes we receive claims by competing interests and we have to
resolve who has the right on a domain name. But there is a procedure
in Greece whereby we deal with domain name management. It's not at
the level of approving the string of the ccTLD.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: France, please.
>>FRANCE: Thanks very much to Adam for raising the question in those
terms. Actually, it's a very interesting angle to take, because when
you think about it, the Domain Name System is what, in complex system
theory, you call a fractal system. It's a self-replicating mechanism
at different levels. I.e., if you own a second-level domain in dot
com, you are the master of your domain for the third level. Like I am
IBM.com. I am responsible for what comes below.
And if I register something in my own third level or after the slash
and this content is unacceptable in one country, you know it will be
prevented, it would be not accessible in that country.
If you get a TLD, that's the same, regarding what happens at the
second level domain. And what we're talking about here actually is
ICANN behaving almost as the registry for dot root and actually
defining the second level registration policy for that root. In that
respect the interesting point that Adam raised is that at the national
level, in France, I learned recently, actually, that dot FR, the ccTLD
run by AFNIC, indeed has a list of terms that are restricted precisely
because of the national legislation on hate speech. I don't have the
list in mind, but I discovered that there is, indeed, a list.
The key problem we're facing here -- And it's a pretty good list.
The key problem we are facing here is this works at the national level
because there is a complete feedback loop between a national entity
dealing with registrations according to a national law, enforced by
the national jurisdictions.
If we were to apply this system at the international level, we will be
confronted, even if the clearinghouse notion is interesting in terms
of a warning signal, if we were to apply this as rigidly as the
national ccTLD does at the international level and combine all the
different names and words that are inacceptable in one country, at
least, we would end up with an incredibly controlling mechanism that
would basically guarantee that we have the universal accessibility,
but at the same time we have hampered free speech in a somewhat strong
manner because we would align to every single objection in every
single country.
And so I think the analogy is interesting. If we combine it with the
notion of an indicative clearinghouse, so that if you are an
applicant, maybe you could check in the thing that, before applying,
there is a word that is likely to be really objectionable. It can be
almost almost declarative by governments or other entities but by
governments in particular that say indicatively, there is a list of
words that I would consider absolutely unacceptable at the national
level.
But I just want to finish by answering both Bill and Alan's comment
regarding the risk of having a blocking at the TLD level.
I didn't think about what Bill is mentioning as the risk of
replicating basically different files. I think it would more be done
by giving instructions to ISPs on the given country to not give access
to that content.
So I'm not sure it would necessarily lead to alternative roots or
alternative TLDs.
But here again, we can think in sort of fractal manner because the
problem we are facing here regarding blocking is not that different
from the problem we are facing on globally hosted content platforms.
When, for instance, you have a problem on YouTube in one country
because of one video, and, for instance, if I take an example I know
that in the Netherlands, I was discussing with a company in France
called Daily Motion, which is the equivalent of YouTube in France, and
there was a video that was made at one moment in time that is illegal
in the Netherlands. And so they took the measures to make sure this
video is not accessible for somebody who comes from the Netherlands.
It's not perfect based on the IP addresses, but there is some element
in that.
And so this notion of granularity, and the two principles I think that
are emerging are the general principle of universal accessibility of
all the TLDs, and the second principle is whatever measure of
restriction should be done at the lowest granular level possible.
And maybe we can go as far as saying under almost no condition, or an
exceptional condition, can a very specific, explicit, legal measure to
block a whole TLD be taken.
I don't know, it's -- Again, we are trying to find boundaries there.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Thank you, France.
Sebastien, please, and then New Zealand.
>>SÉBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Yeah, as an end user participating to the
advisory council within AFNIC to set up some part of the policy, I am
sure that Bertrand can't know by heart the list because it's very,
very long. But at the same time, as AFNIC was just revealed by the
government to be the official registry, we will have to go through
this list because something who was through ten years ago, it's maybe
not through anymore, and at the same time maybe there are some terms
we have to add. And it's an ongoing process we have to go through.
As we will not solve this problem here today, may I suggest that we
think if we can, GAC and ALAC, set up a working group to further
discuss this issue and maybe to come to some idea before the next
meeting. At least if we can do prior it, would be good to have that,
insert it to the DAG 4.5 or 5 or final one, whatever number will be.
And then to help the process to not to derail from where we are today.
Thank you.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: New Zealand.
>>NEW ZEALAND: Thank you, Heather. I just want to put something on
record on behalf of New Zealand that's come came out of the
(inaudible). Just as Bill on behalf of the European Commission has
highlighted an issue of breaking the Internet through different types
of roots, and thus breaking down the universal Internet, for many
countries, and mine is one, principle of free speech is extremely
important. And the idea that the government would be filtering --
compulsory filtering part of the Internet on the basis of a domain
name is absolutely repugnant.
I would be very, very disturbed if the GAC or ICANN or DAG 4.5 or 6 or
10 proposed that as a mechanism for getting around this problem.
Thank you.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Additional comments?
Pakistan, please.
>>PAKISTAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. A very quick one.
I think we should also remember that blocking is not the answer in
some cases. For instance, the honorable colleague from France gave an
example of a site called Nazi Forever, I believe, or there could be,
say, a region that warrants independence from a country and declares a
certain country code top-level domain equivalent.
Now, maybe half the countries in the world or some countries are
supporting that independence, whereas some other countries are totally
against it.
So blocking in itself does not solve the problem, and I think we have
to look for a more concrete solution that the domain, notwithstanding
the earlier comments from our colleagues from EU and New Zealand said
that blocking will also fragment the Internet.
So we have to look for a more robust solution where such controversial
names do not appear in the TLDs.
Thank you.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Indonesia, please.
>>INDONESIA: Thank you, chair.
First of all, the ccTLD which we are having today, it doesn't give a
lot of problem because basically it is a country name shortened by two
words, and so on. Indonesia for ID, Malaysia with MY and so on. So it
doesn't give a meaning at all.
But gTLD might be a name. And that can be all right for some
countries but may be very bad or extremely bad, extremely unacceptable
for other countries.
Of course each country will always be able to block a TLD using their
own regulations; however, if there are many countries blocking a
particular TLD, from my point of view it will be seen as a failure of
ICANN, especially for the GAC, to look after or accommodate the public
or global situation for this.
[ Alarm sounding ]
>>INDONESIA: Oh!
[ Laughter ]
>>INDONESIA: Okay. Well, my friend Bertrand mentions there is a
sensor here, and if you say "a failure of ICANN," you know....
[ Laughter ]
>>INDONESIA: Just a joke (laughing). Don't take it too serious.
Just a joke. Just a joke, of course.
Well....
[ Laughter ]
>>INDONESIA: Okay. But again, what I mentioned is that ICANN, as a
global organization, worldwide, where the membership --
[ Alarm sounding ]
[ Laughter ]
>>INDONESIA: Well, let me try to rearrange my words.
[ Laughter ]
>>INDONESIA: It will be a sin to say something bad about this.
Another one will trigger another sound like that.
Okay. Well, what might be seen as a good effort of ICANN is that it
can also accommodate the public -- the global public situations. So
it is, in this case, the reason why we need to set up some sort of
standard operating procedures for the so-called gTLD.
In the previous meeting I mentioned about the possible trial period,
complaint procedures and so on.
Now, bearing in mind that if a GAC member, if a GAC member said yes or
no to a gTLD name in this meeting, he or she must also stand to defend
his or her statement back in the country. In a country like Indonesia
with 240 million people it is not so easy to defend what I am saying
here.
And so actually what I am saying is that before we really give --
affix gTLD names worldwide, then we have to have an SOP to make sure
that gTLD is basically worldwide globally more or less acceptable, and
will not cause any problem or expectable problems in the near future.
Well, this is for gTLD, but actually this is just additional, not
related to gTLD. Perhaps we can discuss about possible rating of the
Internet content, just like in the movies, for example. In the movies
you always put XXX, whatever, or "with parents guidance," or things
like that. So if GAC can also consider discussion like this in
another location.
Thank you.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Thank you for that, Indonesia.
Are there any reactions or additional thoughts on this topic?
No one wants to try to set off the alarms? Oh, Alan. There we are.
>>ALAN GREENBERG: I have a question. I was just wondering are there
any existing gTLDs or ccTLDs which in any country or language are
significantly offensive? And if so, how is it handled? How is it
addressed? Is it ignored or is it, indeed, addressed?
Among all the two-letter combinations and the few gTLDs we have, there
must be something that's offensive somewhere.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Evan, please.
>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Actually, within the circles that some much us
have been talking, just as dot Nazi has been bandied about as an
example of something that would be universally considered
objectionable, we have also heard use of, for instance, dot gay which
is a genuine attempt at an application under way right now as
something that might be partially offensive and is the kind of thing
that we need to deal with, of a TLD that might be highly objectionable
in some societies but totally fine in others. And this is the kind of
thing that I think we need to deal with.
Under the current objection process, there was a significant concern
that an objection by some societies might force something to be
globally unallowed. And this was a significant concern.
So there are definitely some concrete examples, I think, of TLD
attempts that we need to consider to make sure that, you know, that
national interests are preserved while, at the same time, allowing
those societies that want something and are okay with it to let it go.
>> There's an issue here of the string itself being offensive, and I
don't think you can say the letters G-A-Y are in any way offensive.
They are not rude words. It's not the sort of thing you say when you
stub your toe, and that's an offensive word. I am talking about
swearing and what have you. That's probably offensive. We are
talking about the content that we're anticipating under the TLD that
some people would find offensive, and it gets a little bit more -- I
don't know. What are we talking about here, really, I suppose? Are
we talking about offensive words, the actual string itself, the
combination of letters that are offensive, or is it the anticipated
content that's underneath?
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: I have France and then Fouad, please.
>>FRANCE: Thank you. First of all, I would like to share how good
this discussion is, because, actually, we're addressing a certain
number of topics that are very delicate, that touch very important
national and sovereignty issues, very important philosophical, ethical
and rights problems. So I think it's very fruitful.
And the examples that we are taking help understand.
Actually, Adam is right to remind us that this is about labels, and
that there is a general, as I think I was saying earlier, there is a
general principle that the registry, even less than the hosting
platforms and so-called intermediary liability situation that, the
registry is not responsible for the content that is on the pages that
are on the second-level domain. So it's a label.
And so the question of why is it objectionable, really, that a word is
being used is a real question. This is why I was wondering whether
there is even something that is universally objectionable in terms of
the wording -- the word itself.
Another element is that if you take dot gay, for instance, you can
have exactly the same TLD and exactly the same content behind with a
dot LGBT for lesbian, gay, bi and transsexuals. And who is going to
say that LGBT is a combination of letters that should be unacceptable?
So it is the same purpose. And I think there is an educational role
also for all of us, including in ICANN, to understand the role of a
label and the fact that there is a strong distinction between the
registry function and the content.
And I do agree that it will be difficult to understand also in the
legal frameworks of a lot of countries. But maybe it's an objective.
Another element I want to put in the discussion in terms of example is
I had very, very lengthy discussions a long time ago with Amadeu Abril
i Abril regarding introduction of dot cat and the extreme attention
that he paid and that they paid to explaining and to building it as
dot Catalan and not dot Catalonia, which is answering part of the
comment that our colleague from Pakistan was making.
There are very sensitive issues regarding regional, subregional parts
of territories.
On the other hand, the beauty of the Internet is the capacity to link
communities of language. And in many cases, some orientation, some
presentation, some choice of words for the TLD can allow the TLD to be
accepted because it is presented in a way that takes into account the
sensitivities.
On the other hand, let's be honest, if somebody wants to use the TLD
name as a provocation, then there will be a problem in general. So
the question that people have to ask and the regime should encourage
is to make sure that freedom of expression is fully supported, and
that it is made in a way that makes this expression acceptable as
well.
And so if you want to do a TLD -- I mean, if instead of doing dot cat,
people speaking Catalan said dot free Catalonia, it probably wouldn't
have faired very well with the local authorities and so on. And the
purpose would be the same.
So so it's just a matter of managing the situation we're in which is
as the Internet expands the diversity of actors and the diversity of
people and the diversity of value systems expands as well. And
strangely enough, the more diverse, the more we need rules, and the
more diverse, the harder it is to find universal rules.
So this is the challenge we are facing here and it's not new.
But I think this discussion, again, is trying to highlight the
different distinctions that will help us move forward, and the more we
dig into it the less the mechanism that is proposed in the DAG seems
appropriate.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Thank you, France. Before I give the
microphone to Fouad, anyone else wanting to speak to this topic, if
you could signal in the next few minutes.
We're going to move to some other issues related to gTLDs. The ALAC
has indicated they would like to raise some additional issues.
So Fouad, please.
>>FOUAD: The issue that sometimes is discussed around the, for
example, of dot X, for more than like around 50 countries, the issue
stands as a matter of social, culture and religious norms and beliefs.
And with such a TLD objectionable by, like, a certain portion of the
world which represents something like 1.5 billion people, I'm still
wondering how would governments be looking at that issue? Because
it's the sort of issue, we even have the same issue with the human
rights declaration that it's not fully accepted within the context of,
like, being a universal principle.
And once again, if you look alt the point of filtering and blocking,
some people see it as an opportunity that since everything -- content
like that will be categorized that way. Would you call it an
organized categorization or a natural categorization? And it would be
much easier to block such content and access to it.
So it would require some, like, you know -- I don't know, some
comments on how does the world see it this way. Like how do the
governments see it this way.
Thank you.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Thank you for that.
I have a request from the side there. If you could move to the
microphone and introduce yourself.
Thank you.
>>BOB BREUN: I am Bob Breun from KnujOn. I just want to point out
how difficult it is to decide words that should be banned.
A gentleman in Virginia in the United States had his license plate
taken away because it was 14CV88 and it was code word for white
supremecist. 14 word statement, CV for Confederate Veterans, 88 was
the HH in the alphabet for "Heil, Hitler." He had it for a number of
years until someone figured it out and then they took it away.
If you try to do the coding of all those kinds of things, it is going
to be almost impossible.
So you are opening up a very, very, very large can of worms.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Very interesting point, and I imagine that in
IDNs that only gets more difficult.
[ Laughter ]
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: So I don't see any requests from the floor on
this issue, so let's leave it there, and -- Indonesia? You do?
Please, go ahead.
>>INDONESIA: Just to comment a bit about our colleagues, because you
mention about a social and economical problems in the Internet.
I think one thing we have to realize is that in the world today, you
have two space. One is the real space and one is the cyberspace. The
real space is basically looked after by discussion in the United
Nations organizations. The cyberspace, this is the place. So can we
imagine how important it is to ICANN looking after the cyberspace, a
parallel world of the real space.
So that's why we have to talk about everything, from the social,
technical, economical, moral, and so on, you see. Because it is the
space where cyberspace is discussed.
So I hope there will be study more about this, how cyberspace can
change -- can be in parallel with the real space, and that's why we
have the problems that you mentioned.
Thank you.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Thank you for that. I have Portugal and then
Evan.
Please.
>>PORTUGAL: Well, just for a short remark addressing this question
of the kind of procedures and restrictions that could be considered to
solve this problem on one hand and the freedom of speech problem that
was raised.
Well, from our point of view, what concerns us is that certain gTLD
strings could be objectionable based on law of some jurisdiction and,
therefore, could lead to fragmentation of the TLD space. This is the
basic concern. That has nothing to do, from our point of view, with
freedom of speech. Because freedom of speech is related to content.
And to be very clear about that, even without the new gTLDs, there is
no restriction whatsoever that comes from using the ones that just
exist related to freedom of speech.
So I think these are very different questions.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Thank you for that.
Evan, please.
>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: I just wanted to make sure we didn't leave this
issue without coming up with some kind of follow-up action item for
this.
It's an important issue, and I know you want to move on to other
things. I just want to make sure we didn't without figuring out some
kind of follow-up on it.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Would you like to consider the working group
proposal or did you have something else in mind? Okay.
So I invite to you reflect on that particular proposal.
Okay. So we can move to Adam, I believe.
>>ADAM PEAKE: Well, I wanted -- the subject I wanted to raise -- and
I'm going to put Bertrand -- sorry, you shouldn't smile at me. You
raised something yesterday, Bertrand. But perhaps if we're going to
have a DAG that is ever enforceable, there needs to be a mechanism
where people interested in this work get together and turn it from a
large -- what do you call it? -- to operationalize the DAG so it can
be voted upon, implemented by the board.
And I wonder if you would wish to address that, probably in a personal
capacity rather than as France. I don't know, but....
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: France, please.
>>FRANCE: Thank you. Actually, it's -- the idea -- the initial idea
was an intervention by Jon Nevett, who basically suggested the idea of
a gTLD summit in the discussion this -- yesterday.
And his idea was to say, fundamentally, the situation we're in is
heading towards a case where the board will have, or will feel in a
situation where it wants to close, like, set the cursor on a few
remaining issues so that the program can move forward. And his idea
was, it's up for the community to basically close the program or to
finalize the gTLD program. And he was suggesting the idea of a summit
or some getting together of a portion of the community to iron out the
last elements that need to be ironed out.
I happened to be in the queue at that time. And it actually connected
with another thought that I had, which is the following analogy -- and
apologies for those who have already heard it.
In any national process, when you draft a law, you do preparatory
work. And the preparatory work usually produces a huge amount of
paper, up to the size of the Eiffel Tower sometimes. I mean, it's
tremendous. But when you draft a law itself, hopefully, the law is a
relatively shorter document so that it can be used, manageable, and it
doesn't have ambiguities or things that are not clear.
And I've been wondering whether, actually, the DAG or the ancillary
documents and, basically, the more than 700 pages altogether that
constitute the current documentation should not be considered as
preparatory work. And what we actually need now is to finalize the
law or the regime. And a 20-page, 25, whatever, document that would
have basically three parts. The first part would deal with everything
related to the string or the applicants, separately, like, is the
string a reserved name? Is the string confusingly similar? Is the
string a trademark? Is the string blah, blah.
Or for the applicant, is the applicant technically viable, financially
viable, and so on?
That's the first part. If the string is okay, whatever the rules are,
if the applicants are allowed to compete, you get into the second
stage, which is the designation of the appropriate operator. If there
is one string okay with one applicant, okay, move to the next one. If
you get one string with several applicants, then you kick in the
community evaluation, the whatever beauty contest we can put in. You
choose the delegated operator.
And then the third part is the most important, actually, is the
ongoing operational rules, currently, the registry agreements, plus
the different elements related to monitoring, enforcement of the
regime in the long term.
And so the idea that is emerging is the following. And I would be
happy to have feedback from colleagues on the ALAC and also the GAC,
because we didn't have a chance to discuss it. If such an approach
were to be envisaged, is there a possibility to see that, for
instance, in the autumn, before Cartagena, there is a real period of
time that is dedicated for a smaller group to finalize and produce
this kind of document so that in Cartagena, there is a final document.
Because otherwise, the situation we're in is there will be a staff
finalization, then a final board finalization, and there will not
necessarily be a complete buy-in.
I understand that Peter Dengate Thrush, following those discussions,
has already sent a mail within the board to say, "What do you think of
this idea of a summit?" So on. It's an open question. But I think
it deserves attention. And I think Jon was right to raise this topic.
How do we finalize? How do we get to closure? Instead of kicking the
ball down the line all the time. That's the general idea. And it's
open for proposals.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: I don't see any requests for the floor.
[ Laughter ]
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: I think we have two proposals for various kinds
of follow-up, one related to the morality and public order discussion
we had for a working group, and Bertrand's proposal, more broadly,
regarding the DAG 4 and its next iteration.
I suspect that people need some time to digest. So I would suggest
that the GAC think on this. And if we arrive at some sort of
conclusion or suggestion for the ALAC, that we communicate to you a
bit later.
Failing that, I think we have about ten minutes left. And if there
are no requests for the floor, we could conclude a bit early.
Sébastien, Cheryl.
>>SÉBASTIEN BACHOLLET: No other point you want to raise, at-large?
Elaine.
>> Is it on? Yes. Okay. I just wanted to point out that right now,
we have blocking of top-level domains all the way down to village
level, where an ISP provider can simply say, "I don't want to deal
with dot NG, because there's so much crime associated with that
string."
So the idea that the root is fragmented because there's local
censorship over a top-level domain doesn't make sense to me. And if
someone could elaborate on why that would be true that the root's
fragmented if there's just not access to it, I'd appreciate that. Or
if you would just consider that in your deliberations.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: France, please.
>>FRANCE: I'm sorry, I'm abusing. I'm taking just the last minute
to share something with the ALAC regarding the discussion on
categories of TLDs.
One of the things that could be explored -- and I mentioned that
briefly in the new TLD session yesterday -- is that irrespective of
whether we can introduce the use of categories or categorization in
the DAG itself, a very interesting avenue seems to emerge, and I felt
that Kurt Pritz is open to thinking about it, is the use of categories
in the batching process for the evaluation of the different
applications.
The idea is basically, once ICANN receives and closes the call,
receives the list of, as they say, 500, plus or minus 400,
applications, you take the list, you make four piles, and you just
throw them by categories with the six or fifth pile for others. And
you first determine whether there is basically 90% or 20% of the
applications that fall in those categories, and the staff would
organize its own teams so that at least it's the same people who deal
with all geographic type of application, the same that deal with the
brand type of application, and so on. And so the batching can ensure
that you're not prioritizing one category versus the other, but try to
make an appreciation on how ripe the different applications are.
So just to share this. It's worth further discussion. But we will
explore it as well in the GAC.
Thank you.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: New Zealand, please.
>>NEW ZEALAND: Just picking up on the question that was asked,
nobody's suggesting that filtering out a particular domain name is
breaking the root. My point about filtering was that any form of
filtering on domain space is compulsory filtering. And compulsory
filtering is a problem for New Zealand, and I believe should be a
problem for most people. That was the issue with that.
The breaking of the root was another solution which, I think, Bill
dealt with in his comment where people could have their own version of
the root which was not a universal version of the root, and that would
break the Internet.
Thank you.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Thank you.
I believe you are our last speaker today.
So with that, I --
Sébastien would like to make some remarks before I conclude.
>>SÉBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Yeah. I will not discuss the topic we have
raised. We wanted to thank you very much to have us with you today.
I think it's a very important part of at-large and ALAC work to be
able to exchange with the GAC formally in those sessions, but also
informally, and even formally intersessionally. And we are very happy
to have this opportunity.
I would like to raise two points. The first one is that we have a
dongle with all our documents in three languages, in French, Spanish,
and English. And if you want to have this type of dongle to see how
we work, what was the document we are using for our work, we will be
very happy to give you. And, I guess in the back of the room, we will
be able to give you if not immediately, before the end of this
meeting. And I give one to my co-chair today. And the other we'll
have to ask.
My second and last point, it's to say specifically more to the
European representative, but it's open to everybody. We, the EURALO,
the European at-large regional organization, a showcase tomorrow where
we'll be showing all the organizations at the European level from
10:30 to 12:00 at this arc foyer at the third level. And we will have
the chance to have Antti Peltomäki, the Deputy Director General from
the Information Society and Media Director General from the European
Commission as the keynote speaker. And we will be very happy to have
you if you are able to come and to exchange with us at that moment.
And, once again, thank you very much to have us here with you today.
Thank you.
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Bravo.
[ Applause ]
>>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Thank you, Sébastien. And thank you to the
ALAC for meeting with us.
Joe, I believe, has a quick announcement to make.
>>JOE TABONE: Yeah, if I can remind the Commonwealth representatives
to stay behind for about five minutes, and we'll head over to the far
corner of the room, if you could. Thank you very much.
(Morning session concluded)|^GAC Meeting with ALAC.txt]
