Re: [ga] Policy for dealing with controversial TLDs

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, Danny Younger wrote:

> 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?

No way.  The presumption should be the other way around - not that the 
applicant must prove safe but, rather, that any opponents must prove it to 
be technically dangerous and a clear risk to internet technical stability.

ICANN's policy on new TLDs should follow the First Law of the Internet:

+ Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is
  privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.

   - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who
     wish to prevent the private use.

       - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence
         of public detriment.

   - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify
     the suppression of the private activity.

And as for the whole notion that some names are troublesome - it is not 
the name but the mind of the beholder in which the trouble lies.

For instance ".xxx" might be roman numerals for 30 or even might be viewed 
as the three crosses being dragged up Calvary Mount.

And what might one make of a proposal for ".white"?  Is that intrinsically 
bad, or is it cover for white supremists?

And what about an application for .christian or .islam or .jew?  Wars have 
been fought over this kind of thing.

So, as far as ICANN's policy on TLDs:

 A. It should be blind as to the character sequence and its semantics.

 B. It should leave to law enforcement and civil justice the job of
 enforcing the laws of the various nations - ICANN is neither a consumer
 protection nor law enforcement agency.

By-the-way, even the word "root", a word used a lot in DNS, has a rather 
colorful, even obscene, meaning in certain dialects (Australian) of 
English.

		--karl--