27,652
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 74:
Line 74: + + − − The papers themselves largely propose subordinating ICANN as an entitled policy-making body. Many see the publication of the papers as a response to the aforementioned dismissal of [[GAC]] recommendations by the ICANN board at [[ICANN 41]].<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/who_wrote_those_icann_papers_anyway_european_commission/ Who Wrote these ICANN Papers Anyway European Commission, circleid.com]</ref> The papers take issue with a range of ICANN decisions and policies; from how they staff the organization, to the new [[gTLD]] program, to their handling of [[ccTLD]]s; as a whole they have been taken as a full assault on the organization's independent legitimacy, and its multi-stakeholder model.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/2/4891821.html Blog.InternetGovernance.org]</ref> It has been noted that this whole dialogue and line of argument is very much linked to previous talks related to the [[WSIS|World Summit on the Information Society]], at that fora the EC came under attack from its own members for supporting a level of oversight that would be more amenable to repressive regimes than democratic nations.<ref>[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/31/ec-greater-government-control Dot.nxt, EC Greater Government Control]</ref>
→6 Policy Papers of 2011
===6 Policy Papers of 2011===
===6 Policy Papers of 2011===
At the end of August, 2011, [[Kieren McCarthy]] of [[.nxt]] leaked 6 papers written by the EC regarding their take on ICANN; the papers came on the heels of a number of brash encounters between the EC representative, [[Gerard de Graaf]], and other ICANN participants at [[ICANN 41]] in Singapore.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/2/4891821.html Blog.InternetGovernance.org]</ref> His behavior had some wondering how well he was representing the entire membership of the European Union, and struck many as blatantly rude. At one point during the discussions between the [[GAC]] and the [[ICANN Board]], Mr. de Graaf grew so frustrated that he was audibly pounding on the table and wondered aloud whether he was talking "to the deaf or stupid".<ref>[http://www.internetnews.me/2011/06/19/eu-rep-refers-to-icann-as-deaf-or-stupid/ EU Rep Refers to ICANN as Deaf or Stupid, InternetNews.me]</ref><ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/2/4891821.html Blog.InternetGovernance.org]</ref> The board was discussing how to handle trademark issues with regards to the new [[gTLD]] creation process, and Mr. De Graaf was frustrated that the E.U.'s trademark policy would not be implemented in this circumstance.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/06/19/icanngac-session-marred-by-name-calling-disagreement/ ICANN-GAC Session Marred by Name Calling Disagreement, TheDomains.com]</ref>
At the end of August, 2011, [[Kieren McCarthy]] of [[.nxt]] leaked 6 papers written by the EC regarding their take on ICANN; the papers came on the heels of a number of brash encounters between the EC representative, [[Gerard de Graaf]], and other ICANN participants at [[ICANN 41]] in Singapore.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/2/4891821.html Blog.InternetGovernance.org]</ref> His behavior had some wondering how well he was representing the entire membership of the European Union, and struck many as blatantly rude. At one point during the discussions between the [[GAC]] and the [[ICANN Board]], Mr. de Graaf grew so frustrated that he was audibly pounding on the table and wondered aloud whether he was talking "to the deaf or stupid".<ref>[http://www.internetnews.me/2011/06/19/eu-rep-refers-to-icann-as-deaf-or-stupid/ EU Rep Refers to ICANN as Deaf or Stupid, InternetNews.me]</ref><ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/2/4891821.html Blog.InternetGovernance.org]</ref> The board was discussing how to handle trademark issues with regards to the new [[gTLD]] creation process, and Mr. De Graaf was frustrated that the E.U.'s trademark policy would not be implemented in this circumstance.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/06/19/icanngac-session-marred-by-name-calling-disagreement/ ICANN-GAC Session Marred by Name Calling Disagreement, TheDomains.com]</ref>
The papers themselves largely propose subordinating ICANN as an entitled policy-making body. Many see the publication of the papers as a response to the aforementioned dismissal of [[GAC]] recommendations by the ICANN board at [[ICANN 41]].<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/who_wrote_those_icann_papers_anyway_european_commission/ Who Wrote these ICANN Papers Anyway European Commission, circleid.com]</ref> The papers take issue with a range of ICANN decisions and policies; from how they staff the organization, to the new [[gTLD]] program, to their handling of [[ccTLD]]s; as a whole they have been taken as a full assault on the organization's independent legitimacy, and its multi-stakeholder model.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/2/4891821.html Blog.InternetGovernance.org]</ref> It has been noted that this whole dialogue and line of argument is very much linked to previous talks related to the [[WSIS|World Summit on the Information Society]], at that fora the EC came under attack from its own members for supporting a level of oversight that would be more amenable to repressive regimes than democratic nations.<ref>[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/31/ec-greater-government-control Dot.nxt, EC Greater Government Control]</ref>
Just a few weeks later, in September, 2011, the EC publiclly commented on the "informal discussion papers". They claimed that they did not represent any power grab for control of the Internet, instead they reiterated their support for ICANN's multi-stakeholder model and said that the papers were merely discussion about how to improve its general functioning.<ref>[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/09/13/ec-denies-power-grab EC Denies Power-Grab, dot-nxt.com]</ref>
Just a few weeks later, in September, 2011, the EC publiclly commented on the "informal discussion papers". They claimed that they did not represent any power grab for control of the Internet, instead they reiterated their support for ICANN's multi-stakeholder model and said that the papers were merely discussion about how to improve its general functioning.<ref>[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/09/13/ec-denies-power-grab EC Denies Power-Grab, dot-nxt.com]</ref>
====Paper 1: Applicable Law====
====Paper 1: Applicable Law====
The first paper deals with the board's 2011 decision in [[ICANN 41|Singapore]] to move from a vertically separated [[registrar]]/[[registry]] model to one that allows competition in the new [[gTLD]] space through integration of the previously separated spheres. The EC does not seem to agree, or is not convinced, that competition will continue to be fostered to the highest degree possible; thus, they see the move as possibly in violation with a number of their own laws, and are generally dissatisfied with the board's decision to move ahead despite opposition from them and the [[GAC]]. The EC believes that businesses will now be in violation of certain anti-trust and other applicable laws, and consequently accuses ICANN of disregarding these laws.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/eu-to-icann-17jun11-en.pdf Letter to ICANN Jun 17]</ref> This paper can be read as a starting point for the EC's most recent frustration with ICANN, and its desire to pressure the U.S. Government to use its [[IANA]] contract with ICANN to force policy. This is due to the fact that both the EC and the USG contacted ICANN ahead of ICANN 41 in Singapore to pressure them to not remove the separation between registar and registry functions.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/Paper1-AppLaw.pdf EC Letter to ICANN]</ref><ref>[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/06/19/ec-letter-icann-vertical-integration News.dot-nxt.com, EC Letter Vertical Integration]</ref>
The first paper deals with the board's 2011 decision in [[ICANN 41|Singapore]] to move from a vertically separated [[registrar]]/[[registry]] model to one that allows competition in the new [[gTLD]] space through integration of the previously separated spheres. The EC does not seem to agree, or is not convinced, that competition will continue to be fostered to the highest degree possible; thus, they see the move as possibly in violation with a number of their own laws, and are generally dissatisfied with the board's decision to move ahead despite opposition from them and the [[GAC]]. The EC believes that businesses will now be in violation of certain anti-trust and other applicable laws, and consequently accuses ICANN of disregarding these laws.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/eu-to-icann-17jun11-en.pdf Letter to ICANN Jun 17]</ref> This paper can be read as a starting point for the EC's most recent frustration with ICANN, and its desire to pressure the U.S. Government to use its [[IANA]] contract with ICANN to force policy. This is due to the fact that both the EC and the USG contacted ICANN ahead of ICANN 41 in Singapore to pressure them to not remove the separation between registar and registry functions.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/pdf/Paper1-AppLaw.pdf EC Letter to ICANN]</ref><ref>[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/06/19/ec-letter-icann-vertical-integration News.dot-nxt.com, EC Letter Vertical Integration]</ref>