+1 Well said, Dan. On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Caroline, > > I'm sympathetic to many of your views generally (especially that there is > harm that can come of some x-rated content, though I believe there is > definitely a realm of x-rated content that does not necessarily constitute > "pornography" at least in some cultures [i.e., as long as participation is > entirely at the knowledgeable discretion of the participant -- not > everything erotic is pornographic in all cultures or subcultures] -- but we > are utterly not going to resolve that question here!), but I think maybe > you ask too much of ICANN per se as a governing body. > > I'm dubious of the idea of defining a single global governing body that has > real jurisdiction over content on the Internet, and I don't think ICANN > should be any such body or have any such jurisdiction. I would make every > attempt to push such matters completely out of ICANN's consideration, > specifically because it will not be capable of arriving at a resolution > that is acceptable to all societies/governments/cultures. > > ICANN emerged as a purely technical-standards organization, dedicated to > preventing the Internet from breaking in a technical sense. The very idea > that all of these post-technical considerations should get into the > discussion of DNS at all is one that many members of NCUC (and now NCSG) > have been opposing since its inception. > > The debate about .xxx has been multifaceted, but if there is a "legitimate" > point of entry I think it has been whether "xxx" itself as a *character > string* is "offensive" (completely separate from the question of what the > *use* of the TLD might be). I am with the camp that considers a TLD per se > (as a character string) to be treated not as a "message" but as an > "address" only. What happens at that address is a separate issue, and one > that I would like to see ICANN avoid getting involved with if at all > possible. > > If individual governments or communities want to deal with a .xxx TLD in a > restrictive manner, that is their business and I'm not sure I have a clear > opinion on it, myself. But I sure don't want a "consensus content policy" > to be defined according to a least common denominator (LCD). For example, > I don't want repressive authoritarian governments to set standards for > political speech, and I don't want extreme fundamentalist religious > institutions to set standards for moral speech, etc. > > But most of all, I don't want ICANN to get involved in matters of speech at > all, partly because of the threat that it could lead to exactly the LCD > standards noted just above (not to mention trademark issues which I also > think should be none of ICANN's business, aside from explicitly defining > the matter as outside its jurisdiction, perhaps providing protocols that > point to legitimate jurisdictions for addressing trademark disputes). > > So of the two choices you offer at the end, below, I would gravitate toward > the latter, except that I wouldn't support the idea of a *single* > "structure that WILL be concerned with content on the web" but rather allow > that to continue to be distributed among the various sovereign > jurisdictions. At best, I could see some sort of umbrella institution that > allows these various jurisdictions to communicate with each other in a > coordinated fashion, without taking any "meta-jurisdiction" over them, > other than to set rules of discourse and engagement when discussing content > issues. > > If at some point in the fantasy future we end up without separate nations > in a single global government with unified global jurisdiction over > everything, perhaps there will be some unified structure to deal with this > stuff, but I see no reason to put the cart before the horse here. Let that > happen first before we start creating ad hoc global structures with any > real clout to address the parameters of speech on this communication > platform. > > The danger that many have seen here with ICANN is that some narrow > interests will seek to use ICANN to take control over content policy > (whether it has to do with "morality and order" or trademark disputes) > *without* a genuinely representative and accountable governance structure, > both in principle and in practice. Personally, I am very dubious that > ICANN can construct a governance structure with the requisite > representational breadth and equity to do justice to any consideration of > content issues on the Internet. > > I vote for keeping ICANN's jurisdiction as purely technically-focused as > possible. The fact that there is any confusion on this subject at all is a > reflection of the efforts of entities that wish to involve ICANN in > content-related issues (perhaps to hijack its loose governance processes to > their narrow agendas), and the failure of those in opposition to completely > push back at this encroachment over the lifetime of ICANN's existence. > That's why this issue remains an ongoing debate at ICANN. > > Dan > > > -- > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do > not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. > > > > At 6:56 PM +0100 1/15/11, InternationalParents wrote: >>Hi all, >> >> >>Glad to see those chiming in to approve of the debate, I didn't realize >>this would ensue and I'm sorry if I offended some. >> >>Sorry for what was called "sexism" guys, it certainly was not personal >>given I dont know you in person! >> >>I'm just a believer in facts and had noticed consumers (and producers) of >>porn were predominantly male. >> >>No judgement, just a fact that may have an influence on a man's view of >>things, was my only point... >> >> >>At least Dwi and I agree : >> >> >>Make the Internet Miror Society, not Impose its Views on it >> >> >>> I support the view the Internet miror a specific culture's society and >>>not the >> >>libertarian views of some, many of whom hail from my nevertheless beloved >> >>San Francisco, California. >> >> >>> And in today's western societies, to take an example, porn is NOT >>>accessible to all but >> >>placed in certain areas where normally, only adults can access it. >> >> >>Therefore an imposed .xxx domain name is, for me, the appropriate societal >>approach for western civilizations to take: >> >> >>> This approach PROTECTS the young and those who have a true disgust for >>>such, more than animal-like, >> >> actually un-natural and prowess-oriented displays of sexual behaviour, >> >> >>> In addition to giving a RECOGNIZED avenue to publish and consume such >>>material, since its legal in those societies. >> >> >>I think other cultures should have their own rule. >> >> >>On Freedom and Governance of the web: >> >> >>> I understand the goal of openness and the beauty of the Web thanks to >>>this openness. It seems to me to be more and >> >>more jeopardized, not by some .XXX domain name but by the corporate and >>western civilization takeover of .brandname extensions >> >>and the arbitration process. >> >> >>As the Internet grows and matures, what worked when western countries and >>an elite were part of it will not function when >> >>the masses, 3 year olds, China, India, Africa and others are part of it. >> >> >>It has to grow up and accept some compromises in " freedom ", some much >>stronger governance and accept there may be separate, >> >>multiple Webs with different "laws". >> >> >>ICANN will either have to: >> >>- morph into a multinational, elected, publicly accountable governing >>body concerned with content, >> >>- or see the emergence of another structure that WILL be concerned with >>content on the web, leaving it to be the technical >> >>arm of that governing body. >> >> >> >>I believe the NCUC can represent diverse points of view on issues, given >>its huge cultural diversity and that having a monolithic >> >>view would even be strange. Now I didnt say that was easy to manage and >>that I did very much to help, even though I have a strong interest in >> >>doing so...;-) >> >> >>Best', >> >> >>Caroline >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Le 15 janv. 11 à 06:02, Dwi Elfrida Martina S a écrit : >> >>>Dear Caroline, >>> >>>I am totally agree with you. as woman I feel that my my identity, my >>>pride, my price decrease to the lowest level, when I saw another woman >>>explore their sexuality in internet.sometimes I feel that woman in the >>>porn site is not different with animal, even animal can do better than >>>human, animal still keep their sex activity in good order, keep it as >>>intimacy and private right and never explore it through internet. >>> >>>nevertheless, when I say that I'll support .xxx as legal TLD for porn >>>site, because I think it will be used as central for porn sites,so easier >>>to control dissemination of pornography through internet. >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>> >>>Dwi >>> >>> >>>>Dear Nuno, >>>> >>>> >>>>Maybe not, but I do think your views that one should not take a moral >>>>stand on pornography or anything else are- >>>> >>>>and you in all honesty allude to that- tainted by who you are, and >>>>probably by the fact you're a man. >>>> >>>> >>>>You don't feel it in your guts like I may, as a woman, that it >>>>actually is a violation of the bill of rights the way women ( AND MEN >>>>actually!) >>>> >>>>are treated and portrayed in pornographic material and the impact >>>>such material has on those viewing it, >>>> >>>>especially those with psychological difficulties, not to mention kids! >>>> >>>> >>>>At some point, not seeing it as a problem that this material is >>>>freely accessible to anyone in the name of ' moral neutrality' is >>>>equal to >>>> >>>>endorsing free access to this controversial material. >>>> >>>>>Pretending domain names do NOT have a moral, political and >>>>> >>>>sociological impact is akin to digging your head in the sand. >>>> >>>>>Pretending education will suffice to offset this unlimited freedom >>>>> >>>>of publishing online material is naive. >>>> >>>> >>>>Otherwise why not give us all guns to defend ourselves, just in >>>>case, and just educate us all NOT to use them to kill >>>> >>>>those we dont get along with? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I feel there should be a .xxx extension, and that all porn should be >>>>made to use that and only that, by law, >>>> >>>>just the way this material is not accessible to all in the physical >>>>world. >>>> >>>>Make the techies make that possible, dont let them tell us it's not " >>>>technically feasible" just because they dont care about >>>> >>>>controling access to it. >>>> >>>> >>>>Best' >>>> >>>>Caroline >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Le 14 janv. 11 à 10:49, Nuno Garcia a écrit : >>>> >>>>>I hope that in the end I do not sound like a Hulstler or Playboy >>>>>stockholder or subscriber (I am neither of these), but this is >>>>>really what I believe in, and probably my opinion is relevant for >>>>>the mailing list. >>>>> >>>>>On 14 January 2011 03:00, Dwi Elfrida Martina S >>>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>>hi rudy, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>(snipped) >>>>> >>>>>I agree with you, there is no country who already TOTALLY success >>>>>to do >>>>>process 'filter'. But, still we have to do our best to place >>>>>"pornography" >>>>>in good order, means there is certain regulation, term & condition. >>>>>so, we >>>>>can protect country from decreasing of morality:) >>>>> >>>>>As I think we have made clear from previous statements, Morality >>>>>(as well as public order) ARE NOT an issue that concerns this >>>>>constituency and these considerations should therefore be left out >>>>>of discussion and encouraged to be left of all the discussions in >>>>>ICANN. >>>>> >>>>>(long parenthesis: I'm sure Dwi was formulating a wish for its own >>>>>country, and it this case, it's perfectly ok to do so. I must >>>>>recall the list that Morality is an extremelly complex issue, much >>>>>more than paedophilia, which is generally defined as crime in most >>>>>western and southern countries, but, in contrast, it is indulged by >>>>>some other countries (e.g. asian), and was not at all a crime >>>>>before 1950 in most of the countries I know. When these issues dig >>>>>deep in our cultural backgrounds and in our religious or belief >>>>>points of view, it is best to rely on the system of values that we >>>>>know is transversal to all Mankind and are best described in the >>>>>Charter for Human Rights, that I think best summarizes the values >>>>>we must guide for. End of long parenthesis.) >>>>> >>>>>In conclusion, and having the Charter for Human Rights as a working >>>>>bench, I say that the arguments for discussing this or that issue >>>>>(but not for the .XXX which is long due), should never be issues on >>>>>liberty, or censorship, let alone competencies or policies for >>>>>governments. >>>>> >>>>>We, as an informed and knowledgeable community, must put forward >>>>>our opinions having in view the larger and greater good of our >>>>>fellow Internet users, oblivious to where they sit in working days >>>>>or in holidays or in Holy days. All of us deserve an Internet that >>>>>_does_ _not_ _limit_ our rights as persons and promotes the values >>>>>engraved in the Charter for Human Rights. >>>>> >>>>>We cannot say much regarding the different civilizational issues of >>>>>different countries. For me, I know that in my country we still >>>>>have a long way to go. But this is my belief, probably some of my >>>>>fellow citizens do not agree with me, and therefore this is not an >>>>>issue to discuss here. >>>>> >>>>>I have the greatest of respects for all cultures, religions and >>>>>civilizations, and I try hard to not let my personal beliefs to >>>>>stand in the way of my professional beliefs, so I expect others to >>>>>do the same. >>>>> >>>>>Of course, I stand perfectly aware that, as Ortega y Gasset once >>>>>said, I am myself and my circumstance, and thus my points of view >>>>>will always be tainted by the fact that I was born and raised here. >>>>> >>>>>So to conclude, for me the purpose of this constituency is not to >>>>>place pornography or capitalism or comunism or _______ (fill in >>>>>with you word of choice) into order. >>>>> >>>>>It is to make sure that we provide ICANN with valueable and wise >>>>>opinions. And we should do our best to do so. For our own good and >>>>>the benefit of all mankind. >>>>> >>>>>I leave you all with two thoughts, one from Ben Franklin who once >>>>>said "He who gives up a liberty to achieve a temporary security >>>>>deserves neither and will loose both" (and there are plenty of >>>>>historical examples of this), and the other, from a greek >>>>>philosopher whose name I cannot remember "the best way to prevent a >>>>>damage to society is to educate the children". >>>>> >>>>>With my personal and sincere excuses if my points of view have >>>>>offended anyone (was not my intention), I wish you all a nice week >>>>>end, >>>>> >>>>>Nuno Garcia >>>>> >>>> >>>>Frenchparents.net - Bilingual online community in San Francisco >>>><http://www.frenchparents.net>http://www.frenchparents.net >>>> >>>>InternationalParents - Social network in 30 cities worldwide >>>>Le premier réseau international des familles futées >>>>The first international network for smart parents >>>><http://www.internationalparents.net>http://www.internationalparents.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >>Frenchparents.net - Bilingual online community in San Francisco >> >><http://www.frenchparents.net>http://www.frenchparents.net >><http://www.frenchparents.net> >> >>InternationalParents - Social network in 30 cities worldwide >>Le premier réseau international des familles futées >>The first international network for smart parents >><http://www.internationalparents.net/beta>http://www.internationalparents.net/beta > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------