Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission
- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:30:15 -0400
On 14 July 2010 04:44, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:
I must say I am with Avri on this.
> Instinctively, I see the need for some ICANN-based method to block an
> objectionable name.
What is the basis for this instinct?
This is not a rhetorical question. Simply because one has an instinct to
control something does not mean that:
1) It must or should be controlled for everyone;
2) ICANN is the appropriate place to enact the control
I am frankly amazed at the "well, we've gone too far with this hideous idea,
let's keep it there because staff made it too difficult to extract" attitude
that I see. Unfortunately, I am not surprised by it any longer.
It's not as if the alarm bells haven't been sounding. At-Large and NCUC
called for MAPO's elimination from the moment it was introduced. It is
telling that people here would assert that no opposition existed, oblivious
to the clear messages sent by stakeholders long before the GAC joined in.
(It's also most ironic that a measure designed to "protect the public" is
most actively opposed by the stakeholder groups explicitly charged with
vocalising the public interest.)
So listen to what people on that GAC are saying if you (still) refuse to
listen to ALAC or NCUC: The existing MAPO measures can't work. They're an
invitation for a stream of .XXX type legal battles which will skyrocket TLD
costs for everyone. (Hasn't the XXX episode *already* made new gTLD
procurement more expensive?) Besides, we know that any ICANN measures won't
stop countries from blocking objectionable domains anyway. Even if the GAC
refuses to get involved in crafting a Plan B, there is a growing
acknowledgement that Plan A is a fail.
> National law enforcement has failed to stop Internet crime, so it is a poor
That's hardly a justification to make ICANN the world's Internet morality
arbiters. ICANN can't police it's own existing contracts, it's hardly the
body to entrust with morality judgements of global impact.
And as said previously:
> a) the existence of a method will deter most cases of obviously
> TLDs, so the objection will not be needed.
There is absolutely no evidence to back up this assertion. Saying it
repeatedly does not make it true. OTOH, you have a clear counter-example
that countless obstacles and politically-motivated rejection did not deter
Even if ICANN makes a meticulous procedure and follows it to the letter, the
very mandate that ICANN is attempting to give itself is an invitation to
repeated court challenge.
Perhaps this is one of those times within ICANN might just consider having
instinct yield to logic and common sense.