Hi Esther,
Could you please explain this agenda
from the Governmental Advisory Committee:
>http://www.noie.gov.au/docs/gacmtg2_agenda.htm
>
>DRAFT AGENDA
>
>1.Welcome
>
>2.Internal Communications - Practices and procedures
>
>3.Draft Operating Principles - Revision 2
>
>4.Report from Mike Roberts, President of ICANN, on:
>
>The legal delegation and practical relationship between ICANN, governments
>and ccTLD administrators Changes in policy for registrations under a gTLD
>(for example, as occurred in .edu and as undertaken by NSI) Infrastructure
>Trust Fund - Update on progress and the litigation process
What legal delegation?
What changes in policy for registrations?
What Infrastructure Trust Fund?
(Is that the $50 million U.S. collected fund?)
What litigation?
And a broader question -- who is calling
the shots, the GAC or the ICANN Board?
>5.Report from ICANN / EU / ITU on current administrative arrangements
>concerning ccTLDs, including:
>
>Access to information for users Basis of delegation decisions
Since the GAC is not representative of the
diversity of ccTLD delegations models, and
neither is ICANN/EU/ITU, isn't this a biased
process from the get-go?
>6.Report from Francis Gurry (WIPO) on Intellectual property issues - in
>particular, issues with regard to "cybersquatting, " the speculation of
>domain names as property, and establishment of ownership rights.
Again, how will the GAC receive input
from critics of the WIPO report?
>7.Report from USA and ITU on applicability of specific business rules /
>regimes to ccTLD's which are classified as "open" or "restricted"
Does this imply that some countries will
have full jurisdiction over their ccTLDs,
while others will have to defer to ICANN?
>8.Report from France, UK and Australia on Jurisdiction and Territories
Does this have anything to do with France's
desire to take back control of the ccTLDs
that have been delegated to their possessions.
Since France, UK and Australia all see this
question from the same side of the street,
where will the GAC get input from those
standing on the other side?
>9.Communique / Media Release
>
>10.Any Other Business
>
>11.Next meeting
>
>12.Open Meeting - Dialogue with interested members of the Internet community
What is truly disconcerting is that this
agenda appears to be just that -- an agenda.
It does not seem to be an impartial process
designed to gather facts, it appears to be
a process designed to see an agenda *through*.
It also appears that the big questions are
answered in the GAC first, with ICANN then
following their decisions through their
closed board meetings.
Please re-assure us.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.� 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
