You say Persian. I say Arabian. Let’s call the whole thing off.
The Gulf Cooperation Council has lost a community objection it brought against the applicant for the .persiangulf top level domain name.
This case (pdf) was one of the more interesting ones to be decided to date.
The objectors don’t like the .persiangulf top level domain name because they don’t believe the body of water should be known as the Persian Gulf. Instead, they believe the name should be the Arabian Gulf.
The objector contended that ICANN should not “bring this dispute into the cyber world and by doing so give credence to one side over the other”.
What follows is an interesting attempt by a group that suggests that the Persian Gulf doesn’t really “exist” to prove that it represents the community of the Persian Gulf.
Panelist Stephen Schwebel sided with the objectors on this issue, determining that the Persian Gulf is a community and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) represents much of that community.
But the GCC failed to convince Schwebel that the delegation of .PersianGulf would cause material detriment to the community. In a moment of common sense rarely found in the new TLD process, he wrote:
The dispute between Arab States and supporters, on the one hand, and the Islamic Republic of Iran and its supporters, on the other hand, over the denomination of the Gulf, has subsisted for more than fifty years. It is far from clear that registration of .PERSIANGULF gTLD would resolve, or exacerbate, or significantly affect, that dispute. In any event, the GCC and other Arab interests are and would remain free to seek registration of a domain such as .ARABIANGULF gTLD.
Indeed, the idea that the sky will fall for a particular community upon the delegation of a top level domain name is probably quite amusing to those outside this industry. There are well over 100 .com domain names that include the term “PersianGulf”, and I don’t believe they have led to chaos.
John Berryhill says
The panelist seems rightly concerned about casting his lot on such troubled waters to bridge this gulf of opinion.
Jason says
Its funny that the Iranians behind this TLD are so desperate to go all the way to get a TLD just to emphasize on the name “Persian Gulf”. I wonder who would spend money to register a domain under this TLD. Am not sure if it would make any economic sense to run. But thats their choice.
Kassey says
What a long extension to type!
Joseph Peterson says
As outsiders in the gulf debate, most of us probably view it as trivial. Yet to many people in the region it is a highly charged issue, connected to violent acts of nation-shaping, often imposed from abroad.
If I had to explain the sensibilities to an American audience, I’d probably suggest a quick thought experiment. How would people in Texas react if the United Nations declared that their state would henceforth not be known as “Texas” but rather as “North Mexico”? Or how would Mexicans react if their country were renamed “South Texas”? If the world maps were subsequently redrawn, I’m sure there would be some backlash. And if ICANN released an extension for one interpretation and not the other, wouldn’t we expect some hullabaloo?
People care about their heritage and independence. Even in a country with comparatively little history to point to — such as mine, the U.S.A. — names have mattered.
Appearance is reality, and — in the absence of any ICANN-backed .arabiangulf — it will appear that ICANN is endorsing one interpretation of controversial events.
Personally, I have no problem with ICANN approving .persiangulf — even in the midst of the debate. That’s partly because the gulf controversy is so far removed from me culturally … and mainly because I foresee .persiangulf as having no future of any significance. But if I cared about the debate and thought the extension would lead to actual usage, then I’d probably see the matter differently.
It isn’t really fair to say, by way of analogy, “There are well over 100 .com domain names that include the term ‘PersianGulf’, and I don’t believe they have led to chaos.” And why not? Because individuals have been free to register names to the left of the dot without interference. People are accustomed to that. But extensions to the right of the dot are backed by — and appear to be endorsed by — a powerful, official, international organization. As everybody can immediately see, there is a world of difference between (1) ICANN allowing something offensive to the left of the dot and (2) ICANN approving the same string to the right of the dot.
Again, .persiangulf does not bother me. And I don’t say that ICANN is necessarily wrong to allow it. However, the topic of cultural sensitivity should not be dismissed too lightly. Even if we see the controversy as empty, nevertheless millions of people do view the issue as a case of international bullying.
I think they’re making a mountain of a molehill, but they don’t think so. And I think that matters. After all, it’s their gulf and their history, not mine; so it’s their right to care.
Fortunately, .persiangulf will go nowhere after it is ratified, since there is no appreciable market for .persiangulf websites. Yet the only thing as ridiculous as the .persiangulf extension is ICANN’s blithe suggestion that opponents of .persiangulf pay an enormous fee to offset .persiangulf with an equally pointless .arabiangulf!
Andrew Allemann says
“But extensions to the right of the dot are backed by — and appear to be endorsed by — a powerful, official, international organization. As everybody can immediately see, there is a world of difference between (1) ICANN allowing something offensive to the left of the dot and (2) ICANN approving the same string to the right of the dot.”
I disagree with this. ICANN has deliberately designed the program so that it doesn’t have to make decisions and is not seen as supporting any particular string. It has created arbitration mechanisms to deal with sensitive strings. I would think this falls more under “limited public interest” than a community objection.
The truth remains that the GCC could have applied for .arabiangulf, and no one in Iran would have been able to block it…just like in this case.
Joseph Peterson says
ICANN’s decision isn’t necessarily something I disagree with. So I’m not suggesting that they made the wrong call — only that the issue remains genuinely problematic.
For who among the general public will know anything of ICANN’s arbitration mechanisms or other procedures designed to ensure neutrality? The average person will only know that .persiangulf is officially approved whereas .arabiangulf is not.
Yes, the GCC can pay to offset .persiangulf with .arabiangulf. But should they have been placed in the absurd position of needing to pay to do so? Most of us see .persiangulf as a ridiculous dead end. Perhaps the GCC feels some justifiable resentment at being, in a sense, obligated to pay for a rollout of .arabiangulf just to preserve the balance in this debate. I certainly would in their shoes.
Appearance is often more important than the abstruse facts of ICANN procedures. In the minds of the general public, there is a significant difference between strings to the left of the dot (which are relatively unrestricted and chosen by individual parties) and strings to the right of the dot (which are vetted by a large international organization). Strings to the left of the dot may appear to be statements on legitimacy. Whether ICANN can justifiably wash its hands of the affair or not, many people will resent ICANN’s involvement.
With the traditional extension — .COM or .NET or .INFO or .ORG — there were so little semantic associations that few people even think of .COM as standing for anything at all. There was little room for political controversy with .TRAVEL or .ME or .AERO or .TV because such terms are involved in no disputes whatsoever.
By permitting strings with all sorts of real-world meanings — from .NYC to .GAY to .PERSIANGULF — ICANN has opened a sort of Pandora’s box; and I doubt that all the procedural precautions imaginable can prevent controversies (often with some legitimacy) from arising.
If .PERSIANGULF turns out to be little more than a political stunt, then it’s partly irrelevant whether ICANN is neutral. Of course, ICANN can defend its decision (and perhaps rightly) by invoking free speech — by saying that almost anybody willing to pay money can secure their own string for their own controversial statements. Whether this is truly neutral or fair — as it may be — isn’t necessarily the point that interests me. My focus is on the fact that ICANN may now increasingly become a facilitator or an arena for making large-scale political statements about the legitimacy of some group or viewpoint in the context of a given controversy. Even if ICANN is truly neutral, the high cost of applying for a new GTLD will inherently bias the outcome in favor of the powerful.
On the whole, I think I’d agree with ICANN’s decision regarding permitting .PERSIANGULF to proceed. However, I question whether this question should ever have arisen in the first place.
–Joseph Peterson