Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 3 Oct 2014 19:24:16 -0400 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
This may be where I stick my foot in my mouth but I would like to
suggest a middle ground here. I see little gain from simply opposing any
GAC authority where geographic and similar gTLD names confront national
geographic sensitivities. The issue would not go away and there would be
the prospects of either ICANN simply saying “yes” to government
requests, or an endless series of one-gTLD-at-a-time trench fights
involving ICANN, constituencies, and individual national governments,
trench fights with the potential for considerable collateral damage all
around.
It of course makes sense to support a recommended consultation process
between potential applicants and national authorities. There also may be
merit to having individual governments convey their recommendations
through GAC, and not have individual governments make recommendations
directly to ICANN. In the case of government approval GAC would simply
convey approval to ICANN.
In the case where government objects there may be some merit in GAC
having a short time frame review of the case, one that allows for
submissions by other stakeholders. If the GAC review does not change the
individual government’s position, GAC conveys non-approval to ICANN.
This process would have several merits. It recognizes the legitimacy of
national interests in geographic related gTLDs, in contested gTLDs it
allows for a second consultation within GAC, and it channels government
relations through GAC to ICANN. As well, it starts to generate a body of
case law like decisions that begin to set the boundaries on where
national geographic sensitivities come into play, and that evolves from
within GAC, and not from within ICANN, which should not be making
decisions in this area.
As for worries that this area of geographic sensitivities would be used
against freedom of expression or to curb the activities of civil
society, while I always worry about governmental interference in the
human rights of people and peoples, I do not see this issue as a
particular threat in that area.
Sam L.
|
|
|