Hi Andrew, I'm having a hard time understanding how you can say ICANN should keep the "top level content-neutral and strictly divorced from content-specific rules" while also arguing that ICANN should prevent .xxx because of its content. Do you agree that ICANN should be content-neutral or do you believe ICANN should make policies based on content? Thanks, Robin Andrew McLaughlin wrote: > FWIW (i.e., not much), I agree with Vittorio. To call this decision > "censorship" degrades the meaning of that term. The fact that there > is no .abortion TLD doesn't in any way limit the ability of any > Internet speaker to voice an opinion about abortion. To the extent > that DNS labeling is important, second- and third- and fourth level > labels -- abortion.example.com -- are always available. > > IMHO, free expression is much more threatened by content-specific TLD > labels, all of which ICANN would be smart to reject. Rather than give > restrictive governments and ISPs new tools for censorship of the real > kind, ICANN should keep the DNS at the top level content-neutral and > strictly divorced from content-specific rules. > > Susan's dissent is unconvincing because it ignores the second-order > consequences of using the DNS as a designation of content. It's the > wrong road to go down. > > --andrew > > > On 4/3/07, Vittorio Bertola <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Robin Gross ha scritto: >> > From my cyberlaw blog: >> > http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann_board_votexxx >> >> Well, once in a lifetime, we disagree completely :-) >> >> I have had the luck to witness personally the last three months of >> discussions in the ICANN Board. So, believe it or not, your >> interpretation of the reasons and the value of this vote is IMHO quite >> wrong. Let me explain. >> >> First of all, ICANN had a process for TLD applications (which, >> incidentally, is quite a bad process, starting from the meaningless >> "sponsorship" idea, but that's what we had at the moment), and the vote >> was meant to judge whether the application meant the requirements. There >> was no discussion on whether "adult entertainment" is good or bad or >> whether it should be censored. There was, however, discussion on whether >> the criteria were met; some directors thought they were, most thought >> they weren't. That's how the vote went. Susan and another director - not >> even all the five who voted against rejection - apparently assumed that >> those who disagreed with them did so due to political pressure or desire >> for censorship. This was entirely their assumption and many of the >> others felt personally offended by it. >> >> Even if you forget about the process and think about the idea in itself, >> it looks like a bad idea. Adult entertainment sites do not want to be >> labelled, exactly because they are afraid of being censored; many of >> them - basically all, according to some's judgement; for example, there >> was no single adult webmaster speaking in support of .xxx in the entire >> meeting - made it clear that they'd not have used the new domain. So the >> only purpose for this domain would have been defensive registrations, >> e.g. transfering money from consumers to the company who would have run >> it. Personally - and especially given that I represent consumers on the >> ICANN Board - I think that this would have been publicly detrimental. >> >> Then, let's discuss about "censorship". I think that the statement that >> not approving .xxx is "content-related censorship" is impossible to take >> seriously. You write: >> >> > By voting to turn down the .XXX >> > application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated it will go >> > beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to decide >> what >> > ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name space. >> >> Do you seriously mean that since there is no .xxx there is no porn over >> the Internet? >> >> Actually, if .xxx had been approved, then many governments could have >> passed laws to force porn sites into it, thus actually making censorship >> easier. The only reply I got to this observation was "yes, but in the US >> we have the First Amendment that would make it impossible". And what >> about the rest of the world? >> >> All in all, of course there are sociopolitical aspects in some of the >> decisions that ICANN has to take. Even refusing to consider these >> aspects, and embracing the hyper-liberalistic, totally free market >> approach of approving each and every application for a new TLD no matter >> how controversial it is, which you and others seem to advocate, is a >> political choice. It's way too common to hide behind memes such as "it >> should be a technical decision only" or "let the market decide", but >> these are political choices as well, with lots of implications. I am >> surprised by how so many brilliant people from the liberal US >> environment seem unable to accept diversity on this issue, to the point >> of questioning the legitimacy or good faith of decisions when they go in >> a different direction. >> >> I'll stop here, pointing at the comment I left on Susan's blog - >> http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/3/30/2845638.html#882501 >> >> - for further consideration about the "cultural diversity" issue. >> >> Ciao, >> -- >> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> You are subscribed as: %(user_address)s >> >> To be removed from this list send an email to >> [log in to unmask] with the subject "unsubscribe" and >> you will be removed. >> >> Or - click on this: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] >> >> To change your options: >> %(user_optionsurl)s >> >> Expression mailing list >> [log in to unmask] >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/expression >> > >