[ga] Policy for dealing with controversial TLDs

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Recently, governments have pointed to "obvious and
predictable public policy issues" associated with the
introduction of certain TLDs.  They have cited
"potential ethical problems" and "significant impacts
on local concerns" as justification for a TLD
selection criterion that would examine "the real need
for such an introduction".

The GAC, in their most recent Communique, has also
"agreed to initiate work on public policy applicable
to new gTLDs."

My concern pertains to the choice of NEED as a
selection criterion.  

If we predicate the introduction of a TLD on NEED,
then that means that we probably would have excluded
.coop, .museum, .name and other such TLDs from the
mix.  It also means that tlds such as .eu and .asia
wouldn't have come into existence as I can't imagine
that one could successful argue that there is a
compelling need to brand different regions of the
world.  There probably wouldn't have been a need for
.int as IGOs could easily have had reserved slots
within .org

So, if NEED is not a suitable criterion, how then
should we deal with those TLDs that potentially pose
public policy concerns?  There are governments that
will probably object to TLDs such as .xxx, .gay,
.nazi, etc.  because they hold the promise of content
that some nations will deem objectionable.  

What policy or selection criterion should guide ICANN
decision-making?

Is it sufficient to say that if a TLD raises public
policy concerns, then the TLD applicant must
demonstrate a compelling need for the introduction of
such a domain?

reference URLS:  
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lopez-to-tarmizi-06sep05.pdf
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/zangl-to-cerf-16sep05.pdf
http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac23com.pdf


		
__________________________________________ 
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. 
Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
dsl.yahoo.com