In particular, an earlier ACP comment from the Chinese Network
Information Center at http://www.gtld-mou.org/notice-97-03/0018.html
proposed that a wide variety of names related to countries be
prohibited from use without the permission of the country's
government. A personal communication from Albert Tramposch states
that this idea is being taken seriously (though it mistakes the
Chinese Network Information Center as "a national government").
Similar proposals have also been advanced by others, to encompass the
idea of prohibiting the use of all two- or three-letter words as
second-level domains.
Also, another earlier ACP comment from the World Health Organization
at http://www.gtld-mou.org/notice-97-03/0011.html proposed that
another wide variety of names related to generic scientific words for
pharmaceuticals be prohibited from use if challenged by a
pharmaceutical company. Curiously, they state that these names cannot
be trademarked in many countries, because they are generic, but they
wish to see control exerted over their use as domain names anyway.
In addition, name registrars in many countries' top-level domains find
it commonplace to deny domain registration for names which they find
offensive in some way. For example, words relating to sex, to
religion, or to the names of places within the country. I fully
expect that such proposals will eventually be made in the context of
the gTLD's as well. I have seen proposals that a "list" be made of
such "banned" words, including translations in as many languages and
slangs and dialects as possible, to preclude their being registered as
domain names. For example, to prevent "poofter", which is Australian
slang for a homosexual, from being registered in Belgium (and then
used worldwide, where an Australian might see it and be offended).
I encourage the POC to reject all of these pleas for censorship. I
commend to the POC the comment of David Johnson at
http://www.gtld-mou.org/notice-97-03/0006.html (section 5, on free
expression as a non-intellectual property "right" that defends a
domain user's usage of a name).
The right to name one's own publications is essential to free
expression. Can you conceive of a free society in which one is free
to publish any information, but must use an "approved" name for their
publication? In such a society, the New York Times might be told that
they must rename their publication to the "Slanderous Lies and Bigotry
Times". Or, their "applications" for names would be continuously
rejected by an administrative board until they submitted one
acceptably "politically correct".
In fact, if the rules currently enforced in .com.au were applied to
gTLD's, the New York Times would not be able to name itself e.g.
"times.new-york.info", since that contains the name of a geographical
subdivision of the world.
Domain names are also used as email addresses. In such usage, not
only does the name apply to a publication -- it applies to an
individual person, or a company or other organization. No
administrative body (particularly one run by intellectual property
interests) should be able to pass judgement on what names a person may
call themselves by.
If the POC is to avoid turning into a forum for worldwide censorship,
it must take a strong "constitutional" stance against any kind of
restrictions on the free choice of domain names by their users.
The only such restrictions should be based on:
* technical inability (e.g. SLD names longer than 63 characters)
* prior registrarion (first-come, first-served)
* a small number of internationally-known names used in commerce
* law to which the applicant and/or registrar is subject
(such as local trademark or censorship law)
The reason I say a "constitutional" stance is because, while the POC
does not have a Constitution which guarantees free expression, it
should make a policy decision sufficiently broad and firm that it is
unlikely to be overridden by future POC's.
A look at history brings home the observation that whenever there
exist means to suppress free expression, these means become employed.
The political pressures to do so are immense, despite the obvious
stupidity of such policies. Even in the United States, with a
"Congress shall make no law" guarantee in the Constitution, numerous
electronic publishers (radio, television, and cable distribution
businesses) have no Constitutional protection at all, and even in
traditional media, topics such as sex and excretion are censored. In
virtually every other country, there is a feeble "guarantee" of free
expression, but it can be overridden by the state at will. And of
course it has been overridden in all sorts of ways, from requirements
that only a particular spoken or written language can be used, down to
restrictions on speech on particular topics, such as that which tries
to teach the virtues of hatred, or that which disagrees with the
government.
In American jurisprudence, some clear standards have been arrived at
by courts to determine when a scheme is an acceptable restraint on
free expression. In particular, there must be very clear standards,
visible to all parties, so that if administrative decisions are made
in an arbitrary or discretionary fashion, they can be corrected by a
higher court. If an administrative panel has the power to judge
a domain name in the absence of such standards, it can decide based
on unrelated factors (such as whether it "likes" the applicant or
their previous publications), and there are no legal grounds to
challenge the decision.
The Internet is the best thing to happen to free expression in many
decades. Please do not let it be censored by restricting the choice
of names available, whether or not it inconveniences countries, drug
manufacturers, or advocates of particular sexual mores. Freedom of
expression should never be restricted for convenience.
Thank you.
John Gilmore
Electronic Frontier Foundation