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.