The nonprofit in charge of the world's Internet domains will meet in San Francisco next month, and plenty of eyes are nervously watching the process by which it will decide how to green light new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)—suffixes such as ".com," ".org," or ".info." The International Committee on Assigned Numbers and Names (ICANN) is circulating proposals for handling the next application round.

It's a tricky business. We've already reported on the Recording Industry Association of America's bid to make it simpler to object to new gTLDs that Big Content thinks could facilitate more illegal content sharing. Now there's a new concern. The United States government's Department of Commerce has proposed revisions that would give nations veto power over gTLDs.

That could squelch the prospects for domain endings like .humanrights or .gay, observers worry. The whole idea has Syracuse University Information Studies professor Milton Mueller wringing his hands.

"There's no system of global content regulation that has ever been established, and this is the closest," Mueller told Ars.

Country-by-country

Here's the issue: The US wants yet another criterion added to ICANN's guidebook draft for the five-month-long "Initial Evaluation" period for gTLD applications. Members of the nonprofit's Government Advisory Committee—that is to say, the representatives to ICANN from any country—could object to a gTLD "for any reason."

On top of that, "if it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection[s] raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application," the DoC proposal adds. And here's how the scheme defines "consensus"—a position "voiced by one or more GAC member(s) not objected to by other GAC member(s)."

This would replace the current draft's procedures stemming from its "Limited Public Interest Objection" provision: "The applied-for gTLD string is contrary to generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order that are recognized under principles of international law."

The Commerce document objects to disputes under this category being resolved by the International Chamber of Commerce and a panel of jurists. That plan, says the US, "is contrary to the sovereign right of governments to interpret and apply principles of international law on a country-by-country basis."

Global public interest?

The United States defends this proposal in pragmatic terms. First, the provision will "diminish the potential for blocking of top level domain strings considered objectionable by governments, which harms the architecture of the DNS and undermines the goal of universal resolvability."

And letting ICANN know that there is government "consensus" on the gTLD is "supportive of ICANN's commitment to ensure that its decisions are in the global public interest."

But Mueller pushes back on all this. Just because some individual government blocks a domain, doesn't mean that ICANN should endorse the practice on a world wide scale. "To globalize the blocking process, to magnify it at a global level—that's stupid," he noted in an interview.

And the implications of the DoC's position become more obvious when you look at specific proposed gTLDs, Mueller warned in a recent article. For example, China could object to a top level domain like .falungong in Chinese characters. Or consider the prospects for activists petitioning for a top level .gay domain.

"It is clear from conversations with government officials in a couple of conservative Arab countries that they object to .gay," he notes.

This means that unless other governments are willing to counter this objection, ICANN will suppress an important form of expression for people who happen to be gay. Such expression could be blocked regardless of whether it contains content or words that are illegal in the objecting country; it can be suppressed regardless of whether it is illegal under international law; it can be suppressed regardless of whether it is legal and protected speech in the applicant's own jurisdiction and markets. The U.S. is proposing that suppression take place because some government official doesn't like it. Welcome to the 17th century.

But wouldn't the US step up to the plate and object to these kind of objections?

"This is a completely false hope," Mueller adds. "If governments believe that gays (or other controversial ideas and communities) have a right to express their identity, they would not make their ability to get a domain name reflecting their identity contingent upon a review by a world government committee in which some members are sure to be hostile to their culture and lifestyle. Any government that really wants to uphold individual rights would not do what the US is doing."

The ICANN San Francisco gathering includes GAC working group sessions on March 13 and a full ICANN board meeting on March 18.