Milton,
Unfortunately much of this discussion is slicing into the issues
under a constrained (in some cases simply binary) understanding
of process here. You would be correct in what you say if your
version of the core issues here was correct, but it is not. Put
in terribly simple corporate terms, ICANN as a corporation is
making product decisions, entering into contractual agreements,
and then going completely silent when issues arise around them,
or making very non-consultative decisions that sow anger and
confusion. Example: ICANN and staff either did or did not
issue a controversial
directive to .doctor earlier this month. The .doctor applicant
says it did and ICANN remains mute. This left NCSG to
have a "maybe it did, maybe it didn't" discussion that lead
nowhere. This has nothing to do with your cheap shot of calling
discussion of these issues an appeal to "the heckler's veto".
The less cheap shot come back to that is that expertise that
misses context can be damaging to reasoned dialogue if
credibility from credentials substitutes for evidence and
analysis in context.
What is being asked outside the walled city of ICANN is how is
it performing in terms of corporate social responsibility, and
in general that has to do with not only its product decisions
(which are not solely binary here) but how it engages in product
related dialogues outside the walls of the city. On that later
part ICANN remains mute and that will come back to haunt it.
Sam L.
On 30/03/2015 9:42 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
But
this idea (ICANN must use its power to suppress
anything controversial or it will come back to haunt
it) is one of the WORST guides to policy we can
possibly have. Such a view not only would make ICANN
responsible for the views of anyone to which it hands
a domain, it encourages it to regulate and suppress
any form of expression that offends anyone – which
means, of course that almost any significant form of
expression could be targeted. In American legal
theory, we call this the heckler’s veto.
"These episodes around
gTLDs are going to come back to haunt ICANN in ways
that will not be pleasant.".
:-(