Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["christian stalberg" <cstalberg AT web-analysts.net>]

fyi 

-----Original Message-----
From: gctip-int-bounces+cstalberg=web-analysts.net AT gctip.org
[mailto:gctip-int-bounces+cstalberg=web-analysts.net AT gctip.org] On Behalf Of
Lauren Weinstein
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:20 PM
To: gctip-int AT vortex.com
Subject: [IDONS] 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 AT farber.net> -----

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:36:31 -0500
From: Dave Farber <dave AT 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 AT farber.net
To: ip <ip AT listbox.com>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Richard Forno <rforno AT infowarrior.org>
> Date: January 30, 2011 4:30:14 PM EST
> To: Undisclosed-recipients: <>;
> Cc: Dave Farber <dave AT 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.ht
> ml
>

-------------------------------------------
----- End forwarded message -----

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren AT 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

------
GCTIP-Int (IDONS) mailing list information:
http://lists.gctip.org/mailman/listinfo/gctip-int
Your subscription:
http://lists.gctip.org/mailman/options/gctip-int/cstalberg%40web-analysts.ne
t