On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Nicolas Adam wrote:

---snip---

> By the way, peadophilia is not the issue. It is totally separate. Peadophilia 
> is a crime everywhere (i hope). Porn isn't. And they are not the same neither 
> from a moral point of view, nor is peadophilia simply an extension of porn or 
> porn with a different degree: they are two different kinds of phenomenon.

may i point out that there is no legal mechanism to ensure that a tld 
(for example) .peadophilia contains material appealing to peadophiles.

on the other hand, an organization _opposed_ to peadophilia could well
create the registy for .peadophilia and the local organizations in 
countries worldwide could take second-level domains under that reigstry.

you cannot force them to only consider making a choice of "obvious"
reference to the content of the tld by saying they would have to choose
.anti-peadophilia, for instance.

currently while .com has no regulation of the content of second-level
domains, and most .com sites involve companies that are in favor of
commerce, there are second-level domains concerned with regulation of
commerce, so are .anti-com in nature as well as sld's that propogage
information against specific companies.

would creating a tld .breastcancer mean that all the content there is
advocating more people contract breast cancer, or should they be reqired
to use .anti-breastcancer?

###

any suggestion that content would _by icann policy_ be restricted to
one classification for all new tlds i don't believe would find wide
support at the end of the day.

it retroactively impose classification on internet content could be
done by creating a zero-th level domain extension required for all
current tlds with definitions and enforcemnt by a super-bureaucracy,
which would be very contentious, indeed.   can you imagine such things
as the International Federation Red Cross instead of being 
http://www.ifrc.org would be forced to change to http://www.ifrc.org.charity?
and what of sites like wikipedia which has information in all catagories,
including cancer, sexuality, and terrorism?

###

i support the position that icann should not impose (or attempt to impose)
content restricted to definitions of the string of characters that become
new tlds.   (what the creators of each new registry choose to limit the
registrants under their new tld is up to them, such as the examples of
.aero or .museum)

-ron