NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] GAC/ICANN/IGP -- and the Top Level Domains Lunacy Continues
GAC/ICANN/IGP -- and the Top Level Domains Lunacy Continues The Internet Governance Project (IGP) is going ballistic over GAC attempts to reign in (even slightly) ICANN's horrendous plans for flooding the Internet with new Top Level Domains -- ICANN plans that as I've previously discussed serve mainly to enrich the players in the existing domain-industrial complex and that should be stopped dead in their tracks. We've previously seen the recent objections by the Department of Commerce and all manner of other stakeholders to ICANN's "procedures" in this regard, and to ICANN's continued rush to enrich TLD registries and registrars at the expense of the rest of the Internet community. Here is the actual GAC document that IGP is wailing about in the message forwarded below: USG Submission to the GAC Scorecard re New gTLDs http://bit.ly/ehkpnl (Lauren's Blog) Background reading on this topic: It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD) Lunacy! http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000776.html Announcing Project IDONS: Internet Distributed Open Name System http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000787.html Take a Tiny First Step Toward Controlling Your Internet Addressing Destiny http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000783.html Letter from Department of Commerce to ICANN, Dec 2 2010 re gTLDs http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/pdf4SSmb5oOd5.pdf ICANN Moves Forward with Dot-Ex-Ex-Ex, while ICM CEO Plans for Big Bucks and Censorship http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000724.html "The letter that ICANN hasn't posted" (Free Speech Coalition) http://icannology.blogspot.com/2010/12/letter-that-icann-hasnt-posted.html RIAA "escalation threat" letter to ICANN re TLDs (1/5/2011) http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/pdfZuXmEV9jtt.pdf ----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> ----- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:36:31 -0500 From: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> Subject: [IP] Warning I have no confirmation of this being true!!!! DOC goes 'off the rails' in ICANN position paper Reply-To: dave@farber.net To: ip <ip@listbox.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: Richard Forno <rforno@infowarrior.org> > Date: January 30, 2011 4:30:14 PM EST > To: Undisclosed-recipients: <>; > Cc: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> > Subject: DOC goes 'off the rails' in ICANN position paper > > > The US Commerce Dept position paper for the ICANN Board negotiations > by Milton Mueller on Sat 29 Jan 2011 01:11 AM EST > > IGP has obtained a copy of the US Commerce Department's position > paper for its February 28 negotiations with the ICANN Board over the > new top level domain program. The "USG Submission to the GAC > Scorecard" shows that the U.S. Commerce Department's ICANN crew has > gone off the rails. It supports direct governmental veto power over > domains and demands that ICANN completely rewrite most of the > consensus policies developed over 4 years. > > The specific policies recommended by the U.S. will astonish anyone > who believes that the U.S. supports Internet freedom and democratic > governance. For beginners, the U.S. is demanding that ICANN give any > government in the world the authority to veto a top level domain. The > U.S. wants to make all top level domains go through an initial > "review by governments, via the GAC." In this initial evaluation > process, "Any GAC member may raise an objection to a proposed string > for any reason. If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to > oppose an objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall > reject the application." (In a footnote, the US defines "consensus > position" as "a position voiced by one or more GAC member(s) not > objected to by other GAC member(s).") > > This is truly astounding. The ICANN process has spent years trying to > ensure that only applications that involve words contrary to general > principles of international law will be vetoed. The Commerce > Department, in contrast, is openly saying that governments should be > able to veto a top level domain "for any reason." So much for the > rule of law. > > < - > > > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/1/29/4737705.html > ------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message ----- --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org Founder: - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz Quora: http://www.quora.com/Lauren-Weinstein Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com