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.