Vittorio Bertola wrote:
I found it saddening and disheartening that at the moment when the Board finally approved in principle the creation of any number of new gTLDs, something that we had been advocating and waiting for ten years or so, I found it saddening and disheartening that it took 10 years for ICANN to do this. Perhaps had competition been allowed earlier, .com would not now be seen as a global "default" and we would have had a truly competitive environment.
It is even more saddening and disheartening that ICANN's board, with few exceptions, appears incapable of giving the world new TLDs without imposing a centralized morality as a pre-condition. It was fully capable -- and entitled by law -- to amend the GNSO recommendation and approve the policy to create new TLDs _without_ the offending two clauses.
the only thing that the At Large had to say was a negative statement on a possible interpretation of one of 20 recommendations, a recommendation which is actaully obvious for 95% of the world, but which seems to hurt the intellectuals of a specific developed country which accounts for less than 5% of the world's population but which is disproportionately represented in ICANN for historical reasons.
The offensiveness of the bias in this comment was very well stated by John. As I said, it should have been possible for the Board to approve 19 recommendations and hold on the 20th, but it chose not to do so even knowing that the two groups representing the public interest -- ALAC and NCUC -- were exetremely opposed to it. Thus ICANN's claim, in the JPA and elsewhere, that it heeds the public interest, is clearly open to challenge.
I have disclosed that I have a direct interest in this - actually, I want to get my hands dirty in first person to make this happen
You are not the only one with dirty hands here.
I saw several people from all parts of Europe willing to work to create TLDs for the promotion of their home cities and cultures. As is at large. I note the enthusiasm for .bzh, .berlin; their supporters and others who see new opportunities to serve their communities.
Then why the need to taint this whole process with morality? If the one-twentieth of the policy is contention and the rest is not, why not simply accept the 19 agreeable ones and move on?
Yet there was no mention of this in the At Large's statement, as if the only thing that mattered was how to impose this American liberal view that anyone must be free to offend the religious beliefs and the moral standards of entire continents, without any kind of respect.
So you are saying that Americans should not be able to seek their ideals, but that those with Anti-American views should?
May I say that I am quite disappointed, not only by the fact that I have seen no discussion of this ALAC statement with the rest of the community, The ALAC position is very close to the one taken by NCUC within the GNSO, in which the public problem with the morality/community objection process was very well explained -- and outvoted. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the greater community was unaware of the public concerns. It was aware and chose to deliberately ignore them.
but by the fact that I would expect the At Large to lead ICANN in promoting cultural diversity
I had already heard that the objection process would be used to block the creation of, for instance, ".gay", for the positive use and communication within that community. Since there are many societies which do not accept gays and some which believe such behavior criminal, many objections will indefinitely follow any such TLD application and prevent its occurance. As such, the current policy, with its allowance of morality-based objections, serves to RESTRICT diversity -- or at least reduce it to that which offends nobody.
and the long term development of the Internet, and instead it seems to be thinking with narrow mind and short sight?
Just the opposite. It is those who can see no further than "Yay! New TLDs!", without seeing the greater danger of ICANN being involved in morality (even if the actual judgement is outsourced), who are short sighted. - Evan