en

Public Comment

Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.

Name: Aarti Narayan-Denning
Date: 22 Oct 2021
Other Comments

Take, for example the United Nations - "the UN", as the organisation is referred to.

In the (hopefully unlikely) event that a member of the UN, with dubious command over the English vocabulary, and wishing to impress a peer group, decided that "UN" was a text string that could be automatically appropriated by them. With the backing of your proposal, this would cascade into suspension of all domain names which contain this string. Anyone in their right mind can appreciate how untenable a position that would be.

Text strings have numerous meanings. Case in point: "un-". a prefix meaning “not,” freely used as an English formative, giving negative or opposite force in adjectives and their derivative adverbs and nouns (unfair; unfairly; unfairness; unfelt; unseen; unfitting; unformed; unheard-of; un-get-at-able), and less freely used in certain other nouns (unrest; unemployment).

I am aware of the rampant abbreviating, word cropping and other ungrammatical actions carried out on the English language, especially by those who have little knowledge of it. The above is an example of how disruptive and irrational this proposal could be - and similar proposals that that pave the way for jurisdiction that would result in the automatic suspension of domains and tlds based on the unfounded notions of large organisations.

So, please do not let self-indulgence or vanity get in the way of rational thinking, free speech and common sense. Shelve this proposal and let us get on with the important things in life.

Thank you.


Summary of Attachment



Summary of Submission

I am against any impediment or restraint to free speech, however cleverly disguised.

This proposal would be disruptive to free speech, and only serve to line the pockets of the legal profession. It paves the way for jurisdiction that would result in the automatic suspension of domains and tlds based on the unfounded notions of large organisations. It is simply a vanity proposal and reeks of self-indulgence. It must be summarily shelved.