I've added Paul to the "posters" file so his postings won't
bounce any more.
I've CC'd [EMAIL PROTECTED] who is if I recall, in the
telecommunications policy area of Industry Canada. I'd appreciate
input on what role Canada has in the GAC and how Industry Canada decides
what to put forth to the GAC as policy suggestions from the Canadian Government.
Additionally:
At 03:14 AM 5/19/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>From noie.gov.au!Paul.Twomey Wed May 19 03:14:48 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Jay
>
>Thanks for your message. It would appear that you have two outstanding
>concerns: the criteria for governmental participation in the GAC, and how
>the GAC will make recommendations to the ICANN Board on the WIPO
>recommendations.
>
>I will address each issue separately.
>
>1. Participation
>The ICANN Bylaws specifically state that "Members of the Governmental
>Advisory Committee shall be representatives of national governments,
>multinational governmental organizations
and
treaty organizations"
Of course. When the idea of a GAC came up (could sombody please
tell me how this came into being ?
I don't mean some vaugue response like "a number of Government representatives
requested it", I mean specifically what people representing governments
and treaty organizations spearheaded the effort to create the GAC
and with what authority or mandate form the bodies they represent.
>which may appoint one representative to the Committee". Therefore, the
>only criteria for a government to participate in the GAC is that it be a
>"national government".
>
>With regard to the question of "who within a government is qualified to
>participate," it is up to each respective government to decide whom it
>wishes to accredit. Formal notification is then forwarded to me, or to the
>GAC Secretariat. This is a standard procedure for intergovernmental
>meetings/processes - limits are set on numbers of delegates, but who is sent
>is up to each government.
>
>With reference to your comment about "New Zealand's experience at the
>Singapore meeting", I am unsure as to what you are referring to. There has
>never been any question raised with regard to New Zealand's right to
>participate in the GAC. That the New Zealand government was not represented
>at the Singapore GAC meeting was only due to an administrative glitch (ie.
>extreme time constraints, and that notification of the meeting had been sent
>to an official who was, at the time, at a conference on radio spectrum in
>Geneva). I understand that New Zealand will be represented at the Berlin
>meeting next week.
>
>2. Recommendations concerning WIPO report
>As I indicated in my response to your earlier email, you would appreciate
>that the for and against positions on most issues facing ICANN are discussed
>with government by their citizens and firms. The responsibility to
>represent their citizens positions are keenly felt by government officials
>in most international fora, and this is clearly the case in the GAC.
>
>As for your concern that apparently only a number of countries will have an
>opportunity to comment on behalf of their citizens, discussions within the
>GAC do not happen exclusively and only via face-to-face meetings. In the
>interests of efficiency, discussions are also conducted online and
>'virtually'. Therefore any member, not only the members who are present at
>physical meetings, may at any time raise issues or comment on behalf of
>their citizens.
>
>While it is up to government to decide to participate or not in the GAC, it
>is worth nothing that there has been a fairly good geographic representation
>of the international internet community to date.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Cheers
>
>Paul
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jay Fenello [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Saturday, 15 May 1999 1:36
>To: Twomey, Paul
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Becky Burr;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mike Roberts; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Cheah, Chris;
>Vajrabukka, Nikki; Roberts, Erica
>Subject: RE: GAC Draft Agenda
>
>
>
>
>Hello Paul,
>
>Thank you for your response, and thank you
>for your re-assurances.
>
>As you probably know, my involvement with ICANN
>has been focused on questions about process,
>fairness, and minority representation.
>
>Consistent with that focus, I have some questions
>that have yet to be addressed, primarily regarding
>the GAC composition.
>
>First, what is your criteria for a government
>to participate in the GAC. Given New Zealand's
>experience at the Singapore meeting, many would
>like to know.
>
>In particular, who within a government is qualified
>to participate? How are they invited, and how are
>they credentialed?
>
>Second, how will the GAC make recommendations to
>ICANN on the WIPO draft? Originally, I had asked
>why the only presentation on the WIPO report was
>from WIPO itself. Based on your reply, however,
>it appears that the members of GAC will bring
>forward questions from their local stakeholders.
>
>If so, then it would appear that only about 20 or
>so countries will have an opportunity to comment
>on behalf of their citizens, corporations, etc.
>on this issue. If true, then my first question
>becomes that much more important.
>
>[There were a few more unanswered questions
>(i.e. The Trust Fund and litigation issues),
>but the previous two are the big ones.]
>
>I'm sorry for all of the questions, but we are
>in unchartered territory, and there are few if
>any precedents to use as a basis.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
>-----------------------------------------------
>What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
>
>
>At 04:27 AM 5/14/99 , Twomey, Paul wrote:
>>Jay
>>
>>Thanks for your email - things have been a bit frantic here, hence the
>delay
>>in response.
>>
>>There are a few things I need to make clear. Firstly, I would like to draw
>>to your attention the scope of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
>>The GAC is an advisory committee, and its role is to consider and provide
>>advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of
>governments,
>>including matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's
>policies
>>and various laws and international agreements and public policy objectives.
>
>>
>>The GAC operates as a forum for the discussion of government and other
>
>>public policy interests and concerns. Its role is to provide advice and
>>communicate issues and views to the ICANN Board and not, as you suggest, to
>>determine how the Board will conduct its business. I can assure you that
>>like other Supporting Organisations we give advice to the Board - but the
>>GAC does not have any special, overbearing influence on the Board's
>>considerations and exercise of its duties.
>>
>>With regard to your concerns on the Draft Agenda for Berlin, the majority
>of
>>the reports to be presented at this meeting are the findings of studies
>>which were agreed to be progressed from the inaugural meeting in Singapore.
>>They each address key policy issues which are of interest to governments,
>>and no doubt also of interest to the Internet community.
>>
>>The reports have arisen and have been progressed in response to the GAC's
>>wish for further knowledge on the issues, as well as in response to
>>occurrences which have taken place (for example, the incorporation of the
>>InterNIC site into the NSI site, and in the .edu space the apparent
>granting
>>of domain names to entities which are not four-year degree granting
>>institutions,). The reports are designed to stimulate discussion within
>the
>>GAC, not to mark out any definitive course of action or solution to the
>>issues. You will appreciate that in order for the GAC to provide advice to
>>ICANN, the importance of being, and staying, well informed cannot be
>>discounted.
>>
>>You would also realise that the for and against positions on most issues
>>facing ICANN are discussed with government by their citizens and firms.
>The
>>responsibility to represent their citizens positions are keenly felt by
>>government officials in most international fora, and this is clearly the
>>case in the GAC. So the discussion to date has often been focused on
>>citizen/consumer interests - not just the concerns of governments
>>themselves.
>>
>>With reference to your comment regarding the GAC's approach to be a
>"process
>>designed to see an agenda 'through'" rather than an impartial process
>>designed to gather facts, I assure you that this is not the case. The draft
>>Agenda is not, as you implied, designed to promote any particular outcomes,
>>but rather to encompass the issues which are of interest to governments as
>>well as to the Internet community. It should be noted that in harmony with
>>the policies of ICANN, the GAC operates to the maximum extent feasible and
>>practicable in an open and transparent manner and consistent with
>procedures
>
>>designed to ensure fairness.
>>
>>Hope to see you in Berlin
>>
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jay Fenello [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Friday, 7 May 1999 5:22
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Becky Burr;
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mike Roberts; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: GAC Draft Agenda
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks Esther . . . and Hello Paul,
>>
>>Could you help clarify these questions?
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>
>>Jay.
>>
>>
>>At 02:58 PM 5/6/99 , Esther Dyson wrote:
>>>Jay -
>>>
>>>The GAC calls its own shots. It advises *us*; we do not advise *it.* (And
>>>it *advises* us; it does not control us. We make decisions pursuant to our
>>>own bylaws, with input ("recommendations") from the GAC, from you, from
>>DNSO
>>>members, from anyone else... Please check with the GAC itself on your
>>>questions below.
>>>
>>>Esther
>>>
>>>At 12:40 PM 06/05/99 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
>>>chairman, EDventure Holdings
>>>interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>1 (212) 924-8800
>>>1 (212) 924-0240 fax
>>>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
>>>New York, NY 10011 USA
>>>http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org
>>>
>>>High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
>>>PC Forum: March 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
>>>Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
>>>
>>Respectfully,
>>
>>Jay Fenello
>>President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
>>-----------------------------------------------
>>What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
>>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
--Thomas Jefferson
