[Expression] [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Na

[Carlos Afonso]

Funny, indeed, Milton -- one of the milestones we managed to reach in
Brazil, for example, in the telecom regulatory framework process, is
that once a proposal of rule is made by the regulator, it goes to public
scrutiny before approval. It is not perfect, but I would not like to see
this in the hands of a bunch of bureaucrats or an automated (and/or
closed) process without due scrutiny. Otherwise, what would we be doing
within ICANN? Would GAC members go there to discuss bit positioning in
an IP header? Of course not.

A gTLD (or sTLD) is not just a .com subdomain, obviously.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:
>>>> Carlos Afonso <ca at RITS.ORG.BR> 4/4/2007 3:35 PM >>>
>> regarding the vote (if I voted, of course). However, I think 
>> there is a lesson from this process (I understand ICANN 
>> learns from these processes): the more criteria derived 
>>from public comments and other inputs can become 
>> components of (or enrich) the standard "book of procedures" 
>> the better.
> 
> Funny, I draw the exact opposite conclusion. The less public comment
> and the more the process is completely neutral and objective, the
> better. Comments, challenges, objections simply politicize and
> problematize everything needlessly.
> 
> As I pointed out in Lisbon, there are millions of registrations and
> transfers of registrations in .com daily, and no one has big fights over
> them. Or if they do have disputes, they are based not on subjective
> feelings about what is appropriate globally, but on established legal
> rights regarding trademark, etc. And these disputes come AFTER the
> registration, not before.
> 
> The .com string is nevertheless globally available, just as a TLD would
> be. So what is the difference? 
> 
> Asking people for their opinion about what everyone else in the world
> should do is just asking for trouble. It would stretch any institutional
> process to its limit and beyond. The only result is to permit only the
> most innocuous and probably meaningless and useless ideas to survive.
> Anything controversial or interesting will not survive. 
> 
> That is what we mean when we talk about "censorship." The effect is a
> complete stifling of robust content and expression. Such a result is
> inherent in any prior approval process that allows any group in the
> world to object to what some other group is doing. 
> 
>> I also think it has become crystal clear that TLDs which 
>> ombination of letters might confront resistance (of cultural, 
>> legal or similar nature) in one or more countries or 
>> communities, should in principle be discarded
> 
> Completely wrong, imho. 
> I understand that you are trying to show respect for different
> cultures, etc. But the true effect of trying to do so is simply to
> immobilize everyone. If everyone has a veto on what is published,
> nothing is published. 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 

-- 
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br
***************************************************************