[cooperation-wg] blocking (top-level) domain names

On 8 Sep 2011, at 11:23, Patrik Fältström wrote:

> And finally, some details about "selection of domain names"... Of  
> course the applicant should be able to choose whatever domain name  
> they want. But, in various countries there are certain words, or set  
> of words, that are prohibited from use, or specific use.
>
> Given that such laws exists, where in the ICANN process should a  
> review be done?

I think the problem here is one of transparency. If there is to be a  
list of reserved words which cannot be used as new gTLD strings, this  
list needs to be visible before the application process starts.

It'll cost upwards of $1M to start a new gTLD -- ICANN's application  
fee is just the tip of the iceberg -- and if someone's going to spend  
that sort of money, they would want to know in advance if the name  
they want is not going to be blacklisted. BTW that fee is likely to go  
up: ICANN's just issued an RFP to get someone to carry out background  
checks on gTLD applicants for criminal records, bankruptcy, etc.  
Whoever does those checks will need to be paid.

I'm sceptical a list of reserved words could be compiled in a  
reasonable amount of time. Getting consensus on that will be even  
harder. Then there are the questions about how that list is maintained  
and updated and the processes for that.

Frankly, I am astonished that ICANN could let the gTLD process get to  
this point (start next year?) when there's this level of uncertainty  
about such a fundamental issue. It surprises me too that the people  
applying for gTLDs don't seem to be bothered about it either.

> Blocking of domain names is of course not good, extremely bad (see  
> above) and (I claim) do not solve the problem people want to have  
> solved.

+100 Patrik. But where and how does this argument get made? And will  
the others listen? There seems to be a very strong mindset amongst IPR  
types and law enforcement that take down notices against web sites is  
the only tool they have.