Carlos
While a list of "prohibited names" is not my idea of the best policy, if we managed to get a list of _specific_ names defined, and it was of reasonably small size, and ICANN and the GAC agreed that the list is ALL THERE IS, there are no grounds for objecting to strings that are not on the list, it would be a step forward. 

People who wanted controversial strings could find ways to express their ideas without using the strings in the sensitive list. 

What we _don't_ want are general criteria (e.g., no strings that are "offensive," etc.) that anyone can raise about any string for any reason, forcing everyone to become locked in fruitless debates over acceptable meanings. 

Creating such a list, of course, makes it abundantly clear that ICANN is engaged in the regulation and restriction of expression. But better to clearly define and minimize the censorship than to let it be open-ended, arbitrary and potentially limitless.

>>> Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]> 4/9/2007 8:15 AM >>>
I go further -- I would suggest ICANN prepares a PDP on how to establish a bridge with governments and communities (regional, idiomatic, indigenous etc), and how to define criteria, for building a full 
database of internationalized names (regularly updated by a guidance 
board) which would not be acceptable as g/sTLDs. This would be part of the effort of distancing itself from having to decide in the last 
instance if a name is "good" or "bad".

In addition, ICANN would launch another PDP on expanding thematic 
criteria (geographic, historical, idiomatic etc) for new TLDs to be able 
to decide in a clear and timely process on .berlin, .gal, .rio, 
.katakana, .syracuse, .bio, .social :) etc etc.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Horacio T. Cadiz wrote:
> Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
>>> I also think it has become crystal clear that TLDs which ombination 
>>> of letters might confront resistance (of cultural, legal or similar 
>>> nature) in one or more countries or communities, should in principle 
>>> be discarded
>>
>> Completely wrong, imho. I understand that you are trying to show 
>> respect for different
>> cultures, etc. But the true effect of trying to do so is simply to
>> immobilize everyone. If everyone has a veto on what is published,
>> nothing is published. 
> 
>   How then is it to be balanced in the gTLD? In the end, even if only 
> the most meaningless groups of letters and numbers will ever get 
> registered in a gTLD,
> the fact is that censorship won't stop there.
> 
>   For example, if a pro-Nazi group in Germany registers its 
> "hitlerisgod" domain
> under the .PH domain, do you think the controversy would end because it 
> is not
> in a gTLD?
> 
>   Should we not forget the precept that the answer to "bad speech" is 
> not the curtailment of "free speech" but in the propagation of "good 
> speech." Both "good speech" and "bad speech" die when there is no "free 
> speech."
> 

-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
http://www.rits.org.br 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++