There are currently fifteen GTLDs, including .com, .net and .info. The process of adding new ones is complex and bureaucratic and as we recently witnessed with .xxx – subject to political interference.

A recent report from an ICANN working group called for the new Domain Names to be carefully regulated, advising that names should be censored according to ‘legal norms relating to morality and public order’, ruling out rude, abusive or culturally sensitive words.

Cyber-rights activist Wendy Seltzer, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School is worried by the idea that ICANN should be a global censor. She puts forward a series of well-argued and entertaining postings on her blog where she pushes forward the notion that we need a more open, experimental and risk taking approach with gTLDs as part of the policy-making process, believing that ICANN should set technical standards but refrain from acting as a moral guardian of the network.

She states that "Just as we couldn’t predict what applications or content would be successful on the Internet, but benefit from the ease with which innovators can experiment with a wide range, we’ll benefit if entrepreneurs can experiment with new TLDs without a lot of central pre-screening".

Seltzer is of the opinion that any control over what is acceptable should be imposed at local level, by countries or even institutions. If Saudi Arabia objects to the .allah domain or the Vatican city dislikes .jesus then they will be free to block them, but we should not limit the capabilities of the network purely to satisfy these sectional interests.

She indicates that, "rather than supporting a race to the bottom to adopt restrictions on the lines of the most restrictive government views of permissible expression (no human rights, sexuality, or "hate"), we must leave it to the governments to apply those restrictions at the edges too, in their own jurisdictions if they insist, but not at the center on all".

It would seem that this is the only possible position to take. Regulating the internet is technically feasible, as the governments of China, the US and the UK have all demonstrated in their different ways, but this can be handled at a local level. Ideally the core architecture should be as open as possible, both in terms of the technology and in terms of restrictions on freedom of expression.

What were considered fundamental freedoms was established by The United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights nearly sixty years ago, giving national governments the power to restrict them "solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society".

The same should be expected from ICANN. The rules governing the internet should be universal and in support of freedom from the start, rather than giving a veto to every interest group, lobbying organisation and corrupt government.

If we give in over domain names we will find it impossible to argue effectively over emerging new developments in networking. We can’t say for sure what great things are going to be invented in the coming years, and locking them into a politically controlled framework will only limit their potential.

Ensuring regulation of the network to conform with community standards and local laws is one thing, but it is inadvisable to limit what it can do just in case it upsets someone.