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

[Stuart Lawley <stuart@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Agree with Milton in that given there will be no "objective" standards to refer 
against that the call will be "subjective" and the ICANN Board with its 
international representation and depth should be able to make these calls, 
particularly as it would need a supermajority.


On Aug 31, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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.
>