Thank you for clarifying your position on this.
I probably agree with you that there are many benefits to having
whole-TLD for a porn destination, instead of having it scattered
everywhere.
However, for the porn industry to massively migrate ― and perhaps, in
time, to chose to be hosted almost exclusively under a sex-advertized
TLD ― this needs be done in a way that is not bent on controlling
through TLD-as-leverage. Accepting a .XXX does not mean that all
inter-webs' porn would migrate there overnight. I've read somewhere that
the porn industry is split on .XXX desirability, with half who are more
affraid of being controlled by way of the TLD-as-leverage and half who
would prefer the advantages of a TLD solution because it would
facilitate their business model (they rely on a ratio of 1 paying
customer for a thousand free visitor, as of now, or that's what they
say) by bringing in only the most serious customers.
Hence an approach based on liberty and openness (from the political
point of view), and on ending artificial scarcity (from an economic
point of view) on which basis some, including me, would say that it
adress the "whole issues" in a better way. On the issue of "regulating
locally": it enables, indeed, a very local mechanism: it permits
parents, schools, shopping malls, internet café, etc., who want to
filter on there own machines to have a very low cost, easy way, to
filter a sizeable chunk of undesirable content. For the porn industry,
hits from these communities are likely non-paying passer-bys, and any
way local bans and control are not worth fighting by the porn industry,
especially if they benefit from these by lowering their non-paying (i am
assuming it counterbalances adds); wide-scale bans and controls however
will trigger technological arms races that defeat the purpose.
As you know, porn is not something that we can "fight" easily, and there
are huge costs to decide to attempt to do so. Some of those cost are
very much social and wide in nature, and reflect on a wide variety of
issues that i'm sure you would be in favor of, if i extrapolate from
your position on gender equality correctly (which i freely ascribe you,
please forgive if i am mistaken).
Arguably, the legal "proof" you are looking for does not exist, and
everyone have their own vision of how the world works, and on which
lever we can pull, and what we can reasonnably obtain by pulling them,
but the logic behind the successes of openness as a model have been
defended many times over, politically and economically.
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.
Nicolas
> Hi Nicholas..
>
> I don't think that there is a level of CV based on quality of CV in this
> group, my CV will be the lowest or under ground position:).
>
> Please keep in mind that I never say that I don't like porn, even I never
> state that I will reject .xxx as sex site, not at all. I'll support .xxx
> as sex/porn site if .xxx can guarantee that it is become the center and
> the only one known site for sex/porn. Indeed, they have term and condition
> for people to access it. For me, if this world have one known site for
> porn things is better than have many illegal& unknown porn files that up
> load in many websites.
> But, perhaps I am now wrong.. as andrew said .xxx is not sex/porn site,
> but it is for openness and freedom. Thanks for andrew to up date
> information. I wait for legal paper that state and proof it.
>
>
> my regards,
>
>
> Dwi
>
>
> Hi Nuno, all
>> I can assure everyone that only my CV would be in contact with the
>> ground. I agree with you on the rest, and with Andrew's take on .xxx.
>> Dwi, i see that you don't like porn and what it represent, but
>> unfortunately for all the world woes and problems, finding a way to ban
>> internet porn would not help resolve any of them.
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>>
>>> I am not sure I did understand what Dwi said, but I'm pretty sure I
>>> don't suport or accept this kind of attitude. Dwi, please moderate
>>> yourself. If everyone of us starts pulling out its own merits, I'm
>>> pretty sure that your CV would be on the bottom part of the list
>>> (maybe along with mine).
>>>
>>> So please let us keep the sanity and humility and proactive learning
>>> attitudes that have always been cherished by us all in this list.
>>>
>>> Andrew, thank you for stating a position that is consisten with the
>>> group long agreed positions on freedom and human values.
>>>
>>> I agree with Andrew, and by contrast disagree with opinions that are
>>> contrary.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Nuno Garcia
>>>
>>> On 12 January 2011 13:04, Dwi Elfrida Martina S
>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi andrew..
>>>
>>> I am new member of NCSG but not new member in ICANN. I have been 2
>>> years
>>> involve within ICANN and exist in GAC meeting from the fist time
>>> GAC start
>>> to Draft MOPO. I was replace DG of ICT and Director of
>>> e-government of
>>> Ministry of ICT of Indonesia who are representative in GAC.indeed,
>>> I am
>>> fellowship of ICANN. So please.. watching your words!
>>>
>>> As I know, from beginning .XXX is site that intended for sex. .xxx
>>> is
>>> inspire from .xxx.com<http://xxx.com> that known as site for sex
>>> activities. But as they
>>> propose counter to court of USA and make openness and freedom
>>> become their
>>> justification, so the court ask ICANN to review their .xxx
>>> proposal. But,
>>> if you have new issue that .XXX is not site for sex, you have to
>>> announce
>>> that thing to all participant in ICANN meeting, because as I know,
>>> from
>>> Cartagena meeting, most of participant still have the same point
>>> of view
>>> with me.
>>>
>>> Beside,my question to you, can you guarantee that the content of
>>> .XXX is
>>> not site for sex? what kind of and openness and freedom that they
>>> asked
>>> for? what is the proof that .XXX as TLD is nothing to do with
>>> .XXX.COM<http://XXX.COM>?
>>> Yes.. I you are not Policy maker in NCSG, so please don't make any
>>> conclusion before its not an agreement between members.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Dwi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dwi,
>>> >
>>> > Before posting on any topic, I suggest you familiarise yourself
>>> with the
>>> > current issues by reading through the mailing list archives.
>>> There you
>>> > will
>>> > find that the creation of .xxx is settled NCSG policy and the
>>> reasoning
>>> > behind it has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with
>>> openness,
>>> > freedom and the following of existing rules rather than exactly
>>> the kind
>>> > of
>>> > knee-jerk blinkered moralism that the MAPO proposals represent.
>>> >
>>> > I do not make NCSG policy, but I'm well aware of it, and of the
>>> reasons
>>> > for
>>> > it.
>>> >
>>> > The MAPO issue has also been well-discussed by the existing
>>> membership.
>>> > While
>>> > I welcome new members, I do not welcome them making personal
>>> attacks on
>>> > the
>>> > basis of not understanding anything about the existing situation
>>> when they
>>> > join.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Professor Andrew A Adams [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> > Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and
>>> > Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
>>> > Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>
|
