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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

This is a very good enumeration of the criteria that could and should be used 
in a quick-look, Antony. ICANN staff, take note.

A reasonable standard to me at this point looks like this:

-- Does the existence of the string itself incite people to violence, religious 
intolerance, pedophilia, cannibalism, or whatever semi-universal taboo we 
enumerate ?
-- Does the applicant or its principals have a proven history of trying to 
incite such things?
-- Is the meaning of the string unambiguous (there are no other innocent uses 
for it)?

If the "quick look" answer to all these three questions is yes, then it should 
go to a broad-based panel, which might include outside experts.  Upon this 
panel's recommendation to the Board to reject the TLD, the Board may block the 
application by a supermajority vote.  This procedure should happen early in the 
process so that no-one is put through the Seven Years of Hell that Stuart went 
through.  This process should be separate and independent of objections on 
other grounds.

However, as I argued yesterday on the call, I hope you forget about the "panel 
of experts." There is very little "expertise" to come into play here, it is 
mainly about values. The Board should be directly and unambiguously responsible 
for any censorship of TLDs, and its decisions doing so must surmount a 
supermajority requirement.