Great essay on ICANN's Proposed New gTLD Policy & Censorship

[Milton Mueller]

This is indeed a very good statement, and I think it vindicates our
earlier statements taking on the GAC principles. I believe you got some
flak for your statement, which some accused of being too political. It
shows that when a small number of "early alarms" are sounded that
support can grow and the willingness of a few people to stand up can
embolden others to take public stands, also.

The good news embedded in the statement is that GAC has already drawn
back from the "one country veto" proposal and shifted to a threshhold
approach. This is still a very bad policy, as the essay says, but it
represents movement and we should strive to "keep things moving" in the
right direction.


>>> Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> 3/22/2007 1:44 PM >>>
Mike Palage and Avri Doria have written an essay about the proposed new
gTLD policy (below). It's really terrific, and although it takes a
slightly different approach from the NCUC proposal, it re-affirms our
basic principle that ICANN should remain content-neutral and let
governments do the governing within their own jurisdictions. Here's an

excerpt from the essay:

"... Instead of specifying the number of governments to meet a required

threshold that can block a potential TLD applicant from being added to

the root, the new standard should be that any applicant operating
properly under the laws of the country in which it is organized should

be subject only to ICANN's technical, operational and other criteria.

Assuming the basic TLD application criteria and processes are met, the

TLD should be added to the root. ..."

I hope the ICANN Board understands the dangerous precedent it will set

if it gives the GAC (or itself) any power to prevent new gTLDs for
non-technical reasons.

I've also posted the .pdf of the Palage/Doria essay here:
http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/keep_core_neutral.pdf

Best,
Robin

============

*PLEASE, KEEP THE CORE NEUTRAL*

By Michael Palage and Avri Doria

    "We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information
Society,
    and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human
    Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
    expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions
    without interference and to seek, receive and impart information
and
    ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication
    is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the
    foundation of all social organization. It is central to the
    Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the
    opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the
    benefits the Information Society offers."^1

Many in the technical community attribute the rapid growth and spread
of
the Internet to innovation that took place at the "edge" of the
network,
while its "core" was left largely application neutral to provide a

universal and predictable building block for innovation. It is this
core
neutrality that provides a basis for the security and stability of the

Internet
as a whole. And it is this same core neutrality that is critical to the

continued spread of the Internet across the Digital Divide.
Unfortunately, when the politics of censorship rather than solely
technical concerns drive the coordination of these "core" Internet

resources, it threatens the future security and stability of the
Internet. This paper proposes a paradigm upon which all the governments

of the world have equal access to these core Internet resources to
empower them and their citizens with the rights acknowledged in the
WSIS
Declaration of Principles.

*PANDORA HAS OPENED THE BOX*

When certain governments interjected themselves into the ICANN
Board's
consideration of the ICM Registry application for an adult TLD on
public
policy grounds, they set in motion an irrevocable set of events that
have profound consequences on ICANN's future. The first such
manifestation can be seen in the Draft GAC principles on new TLDs that

have proposed the ability of a single government to block indefinitely,

i.e. effectively a veto, a future TLD application if they had unmet
public policy concerns. Recognizing the shortcomings of this draft
recommendation, certain government(s) have stated they intend to
advance
in Lisbon a new standard by which a significant number of governments
would be able to formally object to, and therefore block, a new TLD.
This new standard appears to be a compromise between the current GAC
principles that require consensus, and the single government implicit
veto contained in the original draft GAC principles.

Regardless of what is contained in the final GAC principles on new
TLDs,
governments have made their intentions clear. They believe that entries

into a domain name database involve public policy considerations that
fall within their purview. Exercising this newly claimed right by the
GAC has unfortunately put a new dimension of international politics
into
one of the Internet's core infrastructure components, the Root A
server.
Instead of governments regulating what their citizens can and cannot
access at the edge of the network in their own countries, as they have

successfully done to date, they are now seeking to regulate actions at

the core of the Internet. Unfortunately, when governments take such
draconian actions at the core, they negatively impact the ability of
Internet users in other countries where there are different, and
sometimes even opposite, public policy considerations.

*ONE COUNTRY'S NATIONAL HERO IS ANOTHER'S COUNTRY'S JOKE*

Injecting international politics into one of the Internet's core
technical resources could not have happened at a worse time, as ICANN
and the Internet stakeholder community are on the cusp of achieving the

predictable and regular addition of new TLDs, including IDN TLDs, into

the Root. If reviewing the TLD applications received in the 2000 Proof

of concept round and the 2004 sTLD round is any guide, it is highly
likely that controversial TLD submissions will be received in the next

rounds. However, the most complex challenges will not lie in connection

with applications for TLDs associated with vice or immoral behavior,
but
with applications for TLDs associated with political groups, religious

groups, or civil society and advocacy groups within some countries. For

example, while certain political groups are involved in the majority
governing body of some countries, these same political groups have been

deemed terrorist organizations by other governments. Similarly there
are
certain civil society groups that legally operate in some countries
trying to advance individual and/or personal freedoms in another
country, but whose actions are deemed illegal in the country where they

are trying to advance those freedoms. Any action by one of these
political groups or civil society groups to seek a TLD for the
community
whose interests they claim to represent, poses the risk of an offended

government taking actions that disrupt the unity and neutrality of the

Internet.
*
SOLUTION: MORE NOT LESS*

Given the potential Catch 22 scenario that ICANN finds itself in, the
question that needs to be asked is whether any action can be taken to
preserve the integrity of the root and ICANN's technical coordinating

role. The answer is yes, but the solution is almost counter-intuitive.

Instead of specifying the number of governments to meet a required
threshold that can block a potential TLD applicant from being added to

the root, the new standard should be that any applicant operating
properly under the laws of the country in which it is organized should

be subject only to ICANN's technical, operational and other criteria.

Assuming the basic TLD application criteria and processes are met, the

TLD should be added to the root.

Instead of a race to the bottom where countries would seek to align
with
other countries to impose their moral or political values by blocking
applications endorsed by other governments, governments should
encourage
organizations and businesses within their own country to fully
recognize
the potential of the Information Society by adding new value and depth

to the Internet. In the case where the inclusion of a TLD into the root

zone may give rise to public policy considerations in another country,

that country can take appropriate actions at the edge of the network to

protect or advance the public policy they have.^2
*
EDUCATION IS THE KEY*

Regardless of what actions the GAC takes, it is more important than
ever
for ICANN to educate the global community through all available fora
about the implications of its limited role as a technical coordinator.

In order for the goals of the Information Society to be fully achieved,

it is paramount that there be a neutral coordination of the
Internet's
core resources. While ICANN provides a platform for universal
resolvability, it should be recognized that governments do retain under

their sovereign authority the right to block access to certain packets.

Those countries that do block or impede this universal resolvability
can
either do it openly or clandestinely. Notwithstanding these actions by

governments, ICANN actions in adding entries into a database should be
a
politically neutral technical function and as such would not interfere

with the sovereign right of a government to regulate at the edge of the

Internet.

Notes:
1. WSIS Declaration of Principles, 12 December, 2003; Paragraph 4

2. It should be noted that the authors do not advocate or support
censorship as a solution even within a national context. We also
understand that it is not within our, or ICANN's, purview to direct the

sovereign activities within the various GAC homelands.