[NA-Discuss] Free Speech and Introduction of gTLDs

[Evan Leibovitch]

Hi Seth. And thanks, Nick, for getting Seth's mail to the list.

>> As I explained at the dinner last evening, my concern is that taking an
>> overly enthusiastic position in favor of free speech is, in my view,
>> likely
>> to stall the process of introducing new gTLDs even further and, in
>> the end,
>> do a disservice to free speech and communities whose language is
>> expressed
>> in non-ASCII community.
I hear you. I was even coherent enough to hear you last night. :-) Being
across the table it was hard to answer easily at the time, but your
points are well taken.

As it is, it's my understanding that there's a moratorium on any new
gTLDs being approved until the application process review is complete;
different points of view told me that this could be by June, or possibly
dragging into 2009 -- regardless of the stance on this particular issue.

Every ICANN process I've witnessed to date -- except for our own :-) --
seems to go agonizingly slow. The whole Ombudsman/ALAC issue is a
testimony to that, regardless of where one chooses to launch the blame.
I think it's unfair to single out a single issue such as Keep the Core
Neutral as the source of this glacial pace.

So far as I can tell, the KtCN campaign is all about simplification,
about the reduction of the number of hoops a registry must jump through.
The draft application process introduces a number of new criteria, which
will certainly impact the speed at which they can be reviewed and processed.

Indeed, the KtCN advocates, from what I can tell, would be happier to
keep the current process, flawed as it is (witness the purely political
effort against .xxx) compared to the proposed changes.

I'm sorry, Seth, but I personally can't abandon such an important
principle as free expression out of a need for expediency, especially
when there's no indication that abandoning such advocacy will speed the
process. There are constituencies here who are trying to manipulate
ICANN to impose cultural-specific bias such as morality into the
decision-making process. There is a reasonable concern that, if every
proposed gTLD has to survive every possible cultural (and alleged
"rights-holder") objection, we could achieve gridlock very quickly.

As for the issue of multi-byte-character domain names, the process for
implementing that appears relatively independent of the gTLD approval
mechanism under review. Please consider that the current proposal for
gTLDs would exponentially slow the approval process, because one must
evaluate 'immoral expression' across multiple character sets. Do you
know what Chinese or Greek-character words would be obscenities in those
countries' cultures? In our? I know that I don't.

I appreciate your comments and share your concern about the horribly
slow pace at which TLD approval -- like so much else (ie, ALS approval)
takes place. But obviously those with political agendas they wish to
impose upon ICANN have no interest in expediency -- else why would such
broad, complex and contentious changed have been brought forward in the
first place?


>> I am particularly concerned with the latter and was
>> enlightened by the comments of the National University of Singapore
>> prof who
>> spoke at the Freedom of Expression forum.  I believe a model similar
>> to the
>> UDRP will offer an appropriate balance between free speech interests and
>> brand owners.
The issue IMO is not totally one of brand owners -- I agree that a UDRP
could handle that. But what about the examples given, such as .gay or
.killthegays, which are acceptable in some cultures and taboo in others?
How does a conventional dispute resolution system apply in instances
where a _term_ is deemed illegal in some countries? What compromise is
possible, short of outright prohibition, that would be acceptable to the
censors?

I hope that the criteria of "respect the rights of others" works both
ways. While it was introduced to assert the protections of trademark
holders, this criteria should (IMO) also apply in asserting the rights
of the public, in enforcing the well-defined limits of trademark
entitlements.

Cheers,

- Evan