I will also add a +1 to leaving things the way it is. So whenever there is
an application scenarios like .amazon[1] it gets resolved on an  individual
basis. Attempting to formerly swing the restriction either way (govt vs
others) may yield unnecessary complication. Nevertheless as it's being
mentioned it may be good to look at existing resolution process with a view
of improving on it.

Cheers!
1. Although the .lagos scenario can be another level of complication (which
I think should be GAC's problem)
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 7 Oct 2014 19:30, "Milton L Mueller" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> -----Original Message----->
> I understand Milton Approach when he argues that if there is "no
> internaitonal treaty or national law than ICANN can act according to the
> guidebook (with all ist deficiencies). However this is only partly true
becvause
> numerous countries have national legislation with regard to the use of
> geographical names. And ICANN - according to ist Articles of
Incorpotation -
> is obliged to repsect "international treaties and national legislation".

ICANN is obliged to respect only those national laws that apply to what it
does in national jurisdictions. Laws are limited in scope to their
jurisdiction - have we forgotten that? Since the domain name space is
global, no national laws can or should regulate it. E.g., a ban or
regulation on the use of the word 'Peru' made by the government of Peru
cannot regulate what I do with my URLs, computer names, or domains in the
USA - even if it is visible in Peru!

> What is the way out? In my eyes the Dilemma offers an opportunity to
start a
> truly bottom up and open multistakeholder RFC-like process to find rough
> Consensus on the basis of "running code" (as the guidebook, some GAC
> advices and the experiences/contracts with the already existing GEO-TLDs,
> from .cat to .Berlin and .london).  I do not see any alternative to such a
> bottom up collaborative approach. Otherwise we end up in a GEO-TLD-War

The alternative is to do nothing. Which is better. If real laws apply,
apply them to what happens, using normal due process and limited
jurisdictions. No need for ICANN to legislate expression on a global level.
And please do not tell  me that speech restrictions are fine if they are
done by a multistakeholder organization. As I have frequently said, I don'
give a damn if the person censoring me is Vladimir Putin or a
multistakeholder working group led by Wolfgang, it's still censorship.