[soac-mapo] On "universal resolvability" and useful questions that emerged yesterday

[Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

Following Milton's request, I'm trying here to reformulate more clearly what
I said at the end of the discussion yesterday regarding universal
resolvability. This is an attempt to reframe the issue we are facing to make
it more addressable. I am not speaking on behalf of the whole GAC here, as
this has not been discussed in that level of detail yet.

1) It is true that there is no absolute universal resolvability today at the
Top Level. However, among the 270 TLDs or so, blocking of a whole TLD is an
extremely rare case and only done (from what I've heard) by a very limited
number of countries. Hence, we can consider that there is a general
situation of universal resolvability, with some rare exceptions. (universal
resolvability here is not understood in the pure technical sense of the term
but more as "universal availability"). This has clearly been a positive
situation for the Internet as a whole.

2) However, the desirable opening up of the domain name space is likely to
introduce more cases where the string may not be considered universally
objectionable (by whatever criteria or process), but nonetheless would be
sufficiently "sensitive" in some countries for them to decide to block it.
This is what the GAC alludes to (in its gTLD principles) when it says that
TLDs should respect sensitivities regarding terms of national, cultural,
geographic or religious significance.

3) To handle such sensitive cases, there are two extreme approaches : either
making no limitations whatsoever at the root level and potentially reducing
significantly the universal accessibility because many countries would block
many TLDs; or at the other extreme, giving a de facto veto right to every
individual government on what gets into the root. Both approaches seem
inappropriate, or at least, unlikely to gather consensus in the group.

4) In other terms, the expansion of the TLD space means that there will be
some strings that will be in the root and blocked at the Top Level in some
countries. This is regrettable but probably unavoidable.

5) As we finalize the new gTLD program, I believe there is a legitimate
common and public interest objective of having/keeping as much universal
resolvability/availability as possible and as little blocking of whole TLDs
at the national level as possible. Therefore, we should probably not speak
of a "principle of universal resolvability" but of an "objective of
universal availability, with limited exceptions".

6) Such national exceptions should, building on the mechanisms of the UDHR
or the Treaty of Paris (often used as reference to MaPO provisions), be made
by law and be based upon national norms of morality and public order (here
MaPO norms are at the national level and this is OK). Moreover, with respect
to the traditional principle of proportionality, any blocking should ideally
be conducted at the lowest granular level possible, which means that
blocking of a whole TLD should remain an extreme and exceptional measure.

7) Therefore, I believe the challenge we are trying to address is to find
ways, at the global level, to handle such cases in the most predictable and
objective manner, so that objections can be formulated, evaluated, and
ultimately measured with respect to the global public interest (ie : the
benefits of a new TLD outweigh the inconvenients).

I hope this clarifies what I tried to convey yesterday.

Finally, I would like to highlight some very interesting questions that came
up in the good discussion yesterday evening and could structure part of our
future interactions :

- how early in the overall process should MaPO/public interest/sensitivity
objections be handled ?
- are we talking "string only" or is the applicant also a relevant element ?
- would a panel (however it is formed) provide "expert advice" or amount to
full "outsourcing" (Frank) ? in other terms, how binding would the
recommendations of such a panel be ?
- does the Board have to make an explicit decision for every TLD (even if
it's a mere endorsement of the result of the process, like in the IDN ccTLD
FT) or does the final decision rest with the staff determination or the
different panels ?
- how much flexibility and direct responsibility would/should the Board have
in the final decision, in particular in the case of sensitive strings ?
- would it be useful to explore a mechanism of supermajority for the Board
to refuse a TLD and/or to overrule a negative recommendation by the panel or
objections by some governments ?

Looking forward to further discussions on the list and conference calls.

Best

Bertrand

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")