Hello Sam, I hope you won't take issue with me asking for some specifics, as I am really thinking that there are no problems that require solving here (except, maybe, doing some political experimentation on the global scale, but when such experimentation are devoid of real subject matter, i don't think it will teach anything concrete). See inline my comments. Nicolas On 07/10/2014 3:17 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > While I understand Milton's argument here, I cannot support his > conclusion. There are complicated Internet ecosystem issues unfolding > around geoTLDs and the issues will not go away. What is the issue here? Some name will be gone and Paris Texas won't have it's gTLD? While it may suck for Paris, Texas, I hardly think this is something that we should try to prevent (mainly because preventing it is so darn complicated and full of secondary effects). But please do elaborate if you feel there is something more to it than this. > Few of them have anything to do with censorship or the freedom of > expression. They will get confronted and dealt with (well or badly) in > various global venues (UN, ITU, new/old multilateral agreements, > old/new multistakeholder processes). Names and numbers get dealt with here. I'm not sure what you're talking about. > Constituencies within ICANN are also concerned with these geoTLD > issues. The more open, inclusive and transparent discussion is the > greater the possibility of good policies, including areas where "do > noting" is the best policy. yeah ... but again, what is the issue here? > > Within that dialogue ICANN itself is a constituent stakeholder. Like > any other stakeholder, it can refrain from engagement in the broader > process, remain outside the discussion, and even refrain from looking > at its existing role in the issues (here resulting from the various > classes of ICANN authorized TLDs: city, brand, geo, etc.). However, I > don't see refraining from engagement as a strategy. We shouldn't do nothing ourselves, but we should (actively) explain why the best course of action is to do nothing (as in, not to edict anything). one very efficient way to do that is to deny there is a problem or a fix. Conveniently enough, there is not really a problem. Nor is there a fix. > Standing with one's back to a growing fire is neither a defensive nor > a proactive strategy. It just means getting burned with little warning > and little preparedness. > > Sam L. > -------Quoting Milton Mueller:------- > > 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! > > 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. > > >