>>> Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]> 08/16/05 2:03 PM >>>
>The original (and very strong) opposition to this 
>unfortunate ICANN decision came from many countries, some of which had

>the opportunity to express their disagreement in the Luxembourg GAC 
>meetings, as the GAC chair's message describes -- it is not a pressure

>from the US alone.

Factually incorrect. Those other governments were ignored until a new
Deputy Secretary of Commerce was appointed by the US July 22. That new
Commerce official doesn't give a damn about the opinions of other
governments. He changed his mind because US Christian groups sent
thousands of letters to them.

>I understand and defend freedom of expression, free initiative and so

>on, but unfortunately even in the paradise of free initiative (the
USA) 
>mostly every private business is regulated.

Carlos, when businesses are regulated they are regulated by laws, by
fixed rules carefully defining their rights and the state's powers. The
laws and regulations are passed by elected representatives and applied
and enforced according to a specific process. Regulators decisions are
reviewed by courts. By what law or authorization does GAC or the USA
intervene here? GAC is an ADVISORY council. Read the by-laws about it. 

What you have in this case is someone deciding to intervene without ANY
legal authority (just sheer power to intimidate), AFTER a decision has
been made according to the established process. It is an invitation to
utter chaos and the degeneration of all TLD selections into arbitrary
politics.

What makes this case especially irritating is the incompetence of GAC
delegates, who had years to express their views and were twice asked to
view a full-fledged presentation of the .xxx proposal. But they declined
- it takes too much work to be responsible, I guess.

On free expression:
Like many others, you have the wrongheaded idea that when organizations
apply for TLDs, it is our job or ICANN's job to say, "do we like what
you are going to do with the domain? Do we like what you are going to
say? Are you "pure" and noncommercial enough for us? That is the
antithesis of freedom of expression. Can you imagine how restrictive the
Internet would be if we had done that with second-level domains? gTLD
delegations should be content-neutral. Unless you agree with that, you
do not support free expression. You are asking for censorship or prior
control.

I will still be drafting a proposed resolution. I hope we can win your
support. I am sure we will if you think more carefully about the
long-term consequences of this reversal. Try to detach your thinking
from the specifics of .xxx. Think about what this means for how ALL TLDs
are allocated and how ALL ICANN decisions are made.