Changes

The first paper can be read [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/Paper1-AppLaw.pdf here].

The first paper can be read [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/Paper1-AppLaw.pdf here].

====Paper 2: New gTLDs, Censorship, and the IANA Contract====

====Paper 2: New gTLD Process====

The second paper deals with the U.S. Government's recommendations regarding new [[gTLD]]s, the renewal of the [[IANA]] contract between the USG and ICANN, and the future role of the GAC in determining whether or not a proposed [[TLD]] has legitimate community support, and also that body's role in creating a block-list for names at the [[Second Level Domain|second-level]].<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/4/4893009.html InternetGovernance.org/blog]</ref> Basically, the EC seems to agree with a provision suggested by the U.S. Government, that would require all applicants to substantially prove that they have the backing of the community they claim to be serving through the proposed new extension, and they would like to see this clause added by the USG into the [[IANA]] contract. The EC further adds that an application should, ideally,  not even be seen by them if it does not have verifiable backing from the outset. Essentially, they claim that it should be quickly verifiable if the extension is a legitimate addition to the root, and if it has a legitimate sponsoring community behind it, though they also seem to reserve the right to amend any initial ruling. Further protections sought by the EC in this paper include a type of universal blocked-list for names at the [[Second Level Domain|second level]]; this was preempted when [[ICM Registry]] asked the GAC for a list of names that it would like to reserve in the [[.xxx]] name space as culturally sensitive or otherwise improper for that name space. The EC sees it as time consuming to produce this list for every new domain, and instead would like the [[IANA]] contract to be amended to allow the GAC to create an authoritative master list of all second-level names that should not be allowed to be registered in any new [[TLD]].<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/EC-TLD-censorship.pdf InternetGovernance.org/blog pdf Paper 2]</ref>

The second paper deals with the U.S. Government's recommendations regarding new [[gTLD]]s, the renewal of the [[IANA]] contract between the USG and ICANN, and the future role of the GAC in determining whether or not a proposed [[TLD]] has legitimate community support, and also that body's role in creating a block-list for names at the [[Second Level Domain|second-level]].<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/4/4893009.html InternetGovernance.org/blog]</ref> Basically, the EC seems to agree with a provision suggested by the U.S. Government, that would require all applicants to substantially prove that they have the backing of the community they claim to be serving through the proposed new extension, and they would like to see this clause added by the USG into the [[IANA]] contract. The EC further adds that an application should, ideally,  not even be seen by them if it does not have verifiable backing from the outset. Essentially, they claim that it should be quickly verifiable if the extension is a legitimate addition to the root, and if it has a legitimate sponsoring community behind it, though they also seem to reserve the right to amend any initial ruling. Further protections sought by the EC in this paper include a type of universal blocked-list for names at the [[Second Level Domain|second level]]; this was preempted when [[ICM Registry]] asked the GAC for a list of names that it would like to reserve in the [[.xxx]] name space as culturally sensitive or otherwise improper for that name space. The EC sees it as time consuming to produce this list for every new domain, and instead would like the [[IANA]] contract to be amended to allow the GAC to create an authoritative master list of all second-level names that should not be allowed to be registered in any new [[TLD]].<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/EC-TLD-censorship.pdf InternetGovernance.org/blog pdf Paper 2]</ref>

Some commentators fear this paper has the elements to create a government backed entity that would take control over the root zone from ICANN. The fear is that under the guise of "public policy concerns" any country in the GAC could overturn the application of any new [[gTLD]], thereby putting the expansion of the root zone at the whim of any repressive government.  Concern is also raised over the politicizing of the [[IANA]] contract between ICANN and the US government, whereby governmental entities, including those outside of the US, increasingly see the contract as a bargaining point with ICANN.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/4/4893009.html InternetGovernance.org/blog]</ref>

Some commentators fear this paper has the elements to create a government backed entity that would take control over the root zone from ICANN. The fear is that under the guise of "public policy concerns" any country in the GAC could overturn the application of any new [[gTLD]], thereby putting the expansion of the root zone at the whim of any repressive government.  Concern is also raised over the politicizing of the [[IANA]] contract between ICANN and the US government, whereby governmental entities, including those outside of the US, increasingly see the contract as a bargaining point with ICANN.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/4/4893009.html InternetGovernance.org/blog]</ref>

====Paper 3====

====Paper 3====

== References ==

== References ==