AW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names

[Kleinwächter, Wolfgang]

Best regards to Las Vegas!
 
There is no conflict in my statements. My position is rather clear. I say yes to new TLDs, including GEO-TLDs (cities, regions, lakes, mountains etc.). I recognize Bertrands intervention that cities are probably a special case (like regions which are politically or culturally defined like Saxony, the Basque Country, Texas or Tibet). In such a case both the GAC ccTLD principles and the GAC gTLD principles offer a procedure. I would reject a concrete proposal where the affected local Internet community has fundamental reservations or concerns. Ig a citizen of Nigeria establish a company in Brazil and applies for .ossetia I had some problems. The applicant for a city or region TLD has to demonstrate the support of the LIC. But the LIC is more than the local authority. If the Lord Mayor of London is against .london but the local Internet community of London wants to have it, they have to come together to figure it out. In the case of .london, I would not support that a company based in Tuvalu would run the .london registry against the will of the public authority and the LIC of London. But if the London public authority accepts that a .london registry is run by a private corporation (according to UK law) this is fine to me. There is no need that ICANN has to look into the details of the local regulation. What ICANN needs is a clear statement, that the Local Community has no concerns and wants to have it. If the LIC is divided, more discussion is needed. But  a simple NO by the Lord Mayor is no argument against the project. You have to ask the user and potential registrants whether they want to have it or not. Catalans wanted to have . cat. Asians wanted to have .asia. If Londoners (or Leipzigers) want to  have .london or .leipzig, they should get it. 
 
Best regards
 
wolfgang
 
         

________________________________

Von: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de]
Gesendet: Mi 18.04.2007 03:55
An: LMcKnigh at syr.edu; Mueller at syr.edu; expression at ipjustice.org; goldstein.david at yahoo.com.au; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names



Wolfgang,

I guess it's not by accident that your language regarding the introduction of Geo-TLD differs significantly from the already adopted GAC gTLD principles. You suggest that a Geo-TLD should be introduced if the relevant public authority does not have "serious" problems with the specific proposal. But than you're back to the question: Who is going to decide if the objections coming from the relevant public authority are "serious" enough to stop the introduction of the TLD. Should a California based organization do this assessment? Or those parts of the local Internet community that want to cash in with the proposed business model? Or a local multistakeholder forum? What if there is no consensus in such a forum?  

Another aspect that worries me is the lack of distinction between the question of "should a specific Geo-TLD be introduced" and the somewhat different question of "who should operate a specific Geo-TLD". I could imagine a situation where a local community would like to see a Geo-TLD, but actually does not trust the one and only organisation that is applying for running that TLD. For example: Think of a scenario where a private company that intends to apply for a Geo-TLD related to your hometown starts offering domain names under that TLD for five digit USD prices long before even the application process of ICANN has started, not giving investors the full picture of the application process and its risk. Honestly, would you trust such a company and would you like to see it running that particulare Geo-TLD, even if you're generally in favour of introducing the new name space?

Michael, Las Vegas   
_______________________________________________________________
SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und
kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance