I agree with Milton that any process, if not carefully carried out, might get rapidly out of bounds or serve no purpose. fraternal regards --c.a. Milton Mueller wrote: > 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 Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br ***************************************************************