[LAC-Discuss] Draft of New gTLD Evaluation Process

[Wendy Seltzer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thanks for bringing this up for discussion.  I too have been troubled by
the problems of arbitrating "morality" as a condition for getting a new
TLD -- even if ICANN outsources the dispute resolution to an independent
provider.

The process is finally getting before the Board soon, (at-large is of
course not represented in the GNSO Council where these came from). There
will be public comment periods, but it's never too soon to start
drafting group comments.

- --Wendy

Josè Ovidio Salgueiro A. wrote:
> Dear Carlton:
> 
> I totally agree with your position which is crystal clear. 
> 
> It is unacceptable that someone else decides what is moral and what is not,
> ICANN is no moral police for the internet world. 
> 
> Count my vote against that proposal
> 
> 
> JOS
> 
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: lac-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:lac-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Carlton
> Samuels
> Enviado el: Miércoles, 11 de Junio de 2008 07:06 p.m.
> Para: 'LAC Discuss'
> Asunto: [LAC-Discuss] Draft of New gTLD Evaluation Process
> 
> Dear All:
> Due to a scheduling conflict with the job that pays my keep, I belatedly
> joined the New gTLD Evaluation Process briefing via teleconference.  Since I
> only came at the tail end, someone may have sought clarification on the
> matter of the four criteria for objections to a gTLD string, namely Sting
> Confusion, Infringement of Rights, Morality and Public Order, Community
> Objection.  The draft also states that the gTLD string can be objected on
> any combination of the four criteria at the same time.
> 
> I have requested and the At-Large Secretariat is committed to producing a
> Spanish-language translation as soon as practical.
> 
> Singly or severally, they ring alarm bells. So while the translation is
> being worked, I shall raise a few concerns for your consideration while they
> are fresh in my mind.
> 
> First, if "Morality and Public Order" is accepted as a criterion for
> successful objection to a gTLD string, it would have finally removed the
> very last fig leaf from ICANN's tattered denial of a political construct to
> its mandate and work. Because since it is widely indoctrinated that morality
> - your sense of right and wrong - is the stuff of religion, it raises the
> question as to whose morality becomes the yardstick.  Rest assured the
> yardstick will certainly not be that of the mosque. But quite frankly, the
> competing morality - and ascendant one, in the sense of the existing power
> equation - is equally objectionable to me. I still have an old edition of
> the Book of Common Prayer where deliverance from "the perfidious Jew and
> infidel Turk" is penitently requested.
> 
> Secondly, it is almost certain that a criterion such as "Infringement of
> Rights" would relegate minority rights to an 'also-ran' position, especially
> with regard to representation of these persons in ICANN councils.
> 
> I will end by repeating a mantra that should be familiar to those who know
> me. Any man that cannot decide for himself what to read, who to associate
> with and most importantly, what to think, is a slave.  Since I am the ONLY
> qualified person to determine what I may think, read and associate, I am
> unalterably opposed to any notion that a tribunal can determine what is
> moral for me.
> 
> When the time comes, I shall vote "NAY" and against this process, as
> defined.
> 
> Carlton
>  
> 

- --
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org
Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIUV9Tuuui10VsrVERAu0CAJwMZ0A8c9njcy0ESwdZ6otLCU0GCwCfRkJ0
/bXoUm1bc58hWsWqLtBCylc=
=ORgK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----