Comments on the ICANN Proposed Final Version of the Applicant Guidebook
- To: 5gtld-procedures@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Comments on the ICANN Proposed Final Version of the Applicant Guidebook
- From: Ben Wagner <b@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:26:52 +0100
Comments on the ICANN Proposed Final Version of the Applicant Guidebook
As the multistakeholder Dynamic Coalition for Freedom of Expression , developed
from the Internet Governance Forum, we wish to comment on Section 3.4.3 of the
Proposed Final Version of the Applicant Guidebook.
Domain names are a form of expression on the Internet and have been recognized
as such by various court jurisdictions. Moreover, censorship or suspension
of domain names is often triggered by the content on websites, therefore we
anticipate a risk that objections to new top level domains may often be
motivated by an attempt to suppress or restrict certain forms of controversial
or diverse expression.
Freedom of expression is well recognized as a fundamental human right. The
leading instruments are the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCRP). Article 19 of the
UDHR, which is considered customary international laws and applies to all
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; 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.
Under international standards as set by the UN Human Rights Committee, any
limitations on freedom of expression must satisfy that the interference is
provided in law and is clear and accessible, the interference must pursue a
legitimate aim as set out under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, and the
restrictions must be necessary and proportionate.
Objecting to a TLD string on the grounds of its meaning, or the content that
one expects to be associated with the domain, constitutes a form of prior
restraint on expression. Because the scope of ICANN's jurisdiction over the
domain name system is global, ICANN's TLD objection processes constitute a
precedent-setting form of global content regulation. Given a well-recognized
international right to freedom of expression, the criteria used to suppress
TLDs must be very narrowly circumscribed and the authority must be used
sparingly. Only those TLD strings that clearly violate well-established
international laws should be blocked under this provision.
Section 3.4.3, currently titled "Limited Public Interest Objection," allow
various parties to object to the creation of a new top level domain because
"the applied-for gTLD string is contrary to general principles of international
law for morality and public order."
We believe that the current version of the AG does not sufficiently respect
legitimate free expression rights. We encourage ICANN's board and staff to make
appropriate modifications in the final applicant guidebook. We have the
following concerns and propose a number of specific modifications.
1. The title should be changed to "Objections based on general principles
of international law." The term "public interest" is too broad and ill-defined,
and lacks any firm basis in international law. Labeling the class of objection
"public interest" encourages parties to object to forms of expression that they
dislike or disapprove of, regardless of their status under defined
international law. We note that a cross-community working group that included
governments (GAC), business/civil society domain name users and suppliers
(GNSO) and internet users (ALAC) decisively rejected the term "public interest"
as a label for this category of objection precisely for this reason. We ask
ICANN staff to re-label this class of objection.
2. We note that numerous governments objected to inclusion of the terms
"morality and public order" as the basis for these objections. They noted,
correctly, that there is no global standard for morality and public order, as
different cultures and communities have radically different standards. Here
again, established international legal agreements are the more appropriate
standard to cite rather than "morality and public order." We ask that the term
"morality and public order" be stricken from the text. E.g., on p. 3-18 staff
should replace "contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality
and public order that are recognized under principles of international law"
with "contrary to generally accepted principles of international law."
3. The decision to censor a top level domain should not be outsourced to a
private "dispute resolution service provider" as proposed in the Module 3
attachment. While we recognize the need for expert advice, we believe that
there should be clear lines of accountability for any decision to suppress
expression and that the ICANN board should make the decision directly. We are
concerned about the long term implications of outsourcing such decisions to
private DRSPs, who will tend to view dispute resolution as a revenue stream and
thus develop an incentive to encourage and facilitate objections. We are also
concerned about the lack of accountability inherent in the use of a revolving
panel of experts selected by a subcontractor of ICANN. If the decisions are
consistently wrong, what recourse do applicants or free speech advocates have?
4. Should there be a DRSP, we believe that it is entirely inappropriate
for the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) to serve as the authority
selecting experts for disputes involving basic human rights such as freedom of
expression. The ICC's International Centre for Expertise is a money-making
service offered by a business advocacy group. It has no specific expertise or
track record on freedom of expression issues. We object strongly to the
prospect of the human right to communicate being adjudicated by this group.
Various alternatives to the ICC were suggested during the cross-community
working group deliberations.
5. We are also deeply concerned about the "Independent Objector" proposal.
The Independent Objector seems to allow objections to be made on an anonymous
and unaccountable basis. We believe that the burden of proof should always be
on objectors to prove that a proposed top level domain name is illegal; the
default should be to allow diverse and even controversial forms of expression.
The existence of an Independent Objector seems to encourage parties to make
objections secretly and at no cost, which reverses the proper burden of proof.
 In the U.S., see The Taubman Company v. Webfeats, et al. 319 F.3d 770 (6th
Cir., February 7, 2003), which stated "The rooftops of our past have evolved
into the internet domain names of our present. We find that the domain name is
a type of public expression, no different in scope than a billboard or a
pulpit, and Mishkoff has a First Amendment right to express his opinion about
Taubman, and as long as his speech is not commercially misleading, the Lanham
Act cannot be summoned to prevent it." In Canada, (January 2001), a British
Columbia court stated that "when a Web site is used for expression in a labour
relations dispute, as opposed to commercial competition, there is... a
reasonable balance that must be struck between the legitimate protection of a
party's intellectual property and... [freedom] of expression." See also Article
19's analysis of the relationship between domain name regulations and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political
 Para.3 of General comment 10 on Article 19 of the ICCPR., Human Rights
Committee, (Nineteenth session, 1983), Compilation of General Comments and
General Recommendations, Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc.
HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 11 (1994).
The Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on the
Internet, Internet Governance Forum.