On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > The problem is that governments are supposed to act via passage of laws > and treaties. But governments cannot agree on the issues surrounding > geographical indicators and hence there is no applicable law at the global > level. Where there is no law, there should be no global constraints on what > ICANN or the users do. A claim of “sensitivity,” an inherently subjective > term, must not be transmuted into global regulations just because ICANN can > get away with it. If governments want globally applicable constraints on > those kinds of names, let them pass and ratify international treaties. If > they can’t, then they must stop attempting to use ICANN as a back door > regulator. > > > I think its quite difficult to give a blanket statement like this. One could argue what global law restricted .us or .ng for instance to ccTLD. I think the fact that ccTLD (govt) can exercise their sovereignty at national level should make it extended to lower level. I won't see a reason why lagos govt should not have right over .lagos for instance. I think a balance needs to be struck in a way that govt will not end-up claiming all the possible tld strings[1] Cheers! 1. Maybe restricting to states names only (and not town/city names) may be feasible --MM > > > > *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of > *Sam Lanfranco > *Sent:* Friday, October 3, 2014 7:24 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC proposal to ban top level domains that > use a geographic word unless permission granted from govt (next rounds of > gtlds) > > > > 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. > > Sam L. > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !