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

[Stuart Lawley <stuart@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I will keep my powder dry on Antonys description on this one Bertrand ;-)



On Aug 31, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:

> Anthony,
> 
> It's only a paradox if you interpret universal availability as a principle 
> that should apply to any possible string proposition (as if there is a sort 
> of "right to be in the root"). But the objective is universal availability of 
> the strings that will be accepted in the root (those rejected will be for 
> many reasons, ie : all the diverse objections listed in the DAG). The 
> ambition is that strings that are in the global common root are as 
> universally available as possible. But you are right in a certain way : there 
> is potentially a sort of intellectual feedback loop there.
> 
> Interesting qualification of .xxx as "existing to be blocked" :-) Not sure 
> this is what Stuart had or has in mind ... 
> 
> Best
> 
> Bertrand
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Antony Van Couvering 
> <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bertrand,
> 
> Thank you for this resume and overview.  It is very helpful.
> 
> At the heart of your argument is an interesting paradox.  Shall we set up 
> rules to block certain strings in order to preserve universal availability?  
> If a string is blocked, it is available to no-one at all, and hence is the 
> opposite of universally available.  If it is blocked only partially, for 
> example by certain governments, then it is not universally available, but it 
> is nonetheless far more available than if it had never seen the light of day 
> at all.
> 
> What are your thoughts then on .XXX, which exists to be blocked?
> 
> Antony
> 
> 
> On Aug 31, 2010, at 4:56 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> 
> > 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")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ____________________
> 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")