RE: [ga] Outcome of discussion on string checks

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny,

I think it is unfair to say that the new gTLD committee wants to stifle
free speech and I think that there are a variety of opinions on the
committee, but I think it is fair to say that most of us on the
committee believe that it would not be smart to repeat what happened
with .xxx.  Therefore, there was general agreement that the GAC should
be consulted to see if there are 'public policy' concerns regarding new
gTLDs that the GAC could provide advice on before the process starts.
The types of strings Bruce listed are just a list of possible ones that
relate to public policy.

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:53 AM
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ga] Outcome of discussion on string checks 
> 
> Reading through Bruce Tonkin's synopsis of the
> Amsterdam discussions on string checks I noted one of
> the "outcomes" that strikes me as problematic:
> 
> (d)     The string should not be <controversial,
> political, cultural, religious terms> (develop text
> related to public policy issues with GAC)
> 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00203.html
> 
> Why have we arrived at this conclusion?  Why can't a
> particular string be controversial?  There are many
> that wanted to have a .xxx domain on the Internet. 
> Should this possibility continue to be denied just
> because some view it as controversial?  Why have
> members of the GNSO chosen to stifle free speech?  
> 
> Perhaps an Amsterdam participant can shed light on
> this outcome for us?  
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
>