Hi Milton,
yes, governments are supposed to act via passage of treaties - the rule of law and I also agree vague terms such as "sensitivities" are simply not acceptable.
In the case of the right to culture, however, there are treaties and both international and national laws which deal with this right and related rights, including for example the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (article 27) and on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights (articles 1 and 15). And governments have obligations, duties, to uphold and protect those rights - so I think GAC members should be asserting these.
However, I think the tricky question for ICANN is: do its policy processes adequately take into account these rights and, if so, how? if not, how can it do better. And qns for GAC include how does it assert obligations under these treaties and laws in ways that uphold rather than undermine ICANN policy processes? A ban on names is not the answer, nor is a veto: but some legitimate process for dealing with conflicting or competing rights remains needed, imho

Joy

On 7/10/2014 3:39 a.m., Milton L Mueller wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

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.

 

--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.