Thanks for this clear explanation nicolas. and I support your opinion. and this explanation is can be used as our justification why we support ALAC's statement number one. Regards, Dwi 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/ >>>> > >>>> >>>> >> >