<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:201101130903.p0D93QVw011234@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And, as Jon Postel once said, "this is a naming system, not a general
directory assistance system". So, like Ron explicated, there is
absolutely no need to behave under a domain in such a way as to respect
necessary and sufficient conditions for semantic equivalence (or
non-contradiction) with the stated meaning of the string.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Jon Postel's obvious wisdom notwithstanding, by the time ICANN was created
the view of most was that the DNS for Web URLs was exactly such a directory
service. So many many problems we now have are explainedd by that view
becoming dominant. It should also be noted, though, that when Dr Postel made
his statement, the Web wasn't in existence and Hypertext generally was in its
infancy.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Most probably true that many view DNS just like that, and to tell
you the truth, that's not such a bad thing (that it be viewed as
such). I would also be happy if, by way of the addition of many more
tlds, registrars and users would find themselves reinventing tlds in
such a way that it added *meaning* value, not only with tld, but
with regard to sld and beyond as well. Truth of the matter is,
because Postel did not have his way on this, we do not know what the
DNS would/could look like once we have many possible tlds. But, to
*regulate* DNS for internal consistency is not, IMHO, the proper way
to mould it into what it could in principle become.<br>
<br>
To stay focus: No, icann should not ban a priori registration by
anti-porn activists in the .xxx, nor should it impose such control
on registrars.
<blockquote cite="mid:201101130903.p0D93QVw011234@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In any case, under the financial conditions of new gTLD applications,
gunning for a .peadophile TLD might not be all that rationnal. I'm
guessing that the high price tag on new gTLD application is protection
enough for obviously inesthetical or frivolous TLD registration (am I
already contradicted by experience?).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Oh, I agree completely that it's highly unliklely that under the current
funding proposals .paedophile is unlikely to be suggested. However, it used
to cost $200 pa (when $200 was worth more, as well) to register a domain
name, and within a couple of years it came down to $20. Basing our
acquiescence to a framework on the initially prohibitive cost (which we've
already complained about in respect of, for example, developing economies)
would possibly leave us with egg on our faces should the price quickly drop
to $10,000 or $1,000 in a few years.
</pre>
</blockquote>
True enough. And there was also the problem of sld such that we
could have peadophilia.xxx . I don't know what icann's policy
actually is for obscene words, but i guess i can live with a short
blacklist.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:201101130903.p0D93QVw011234@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Obviously, i can see that we could want to "give-a-little" on such
issues to the GAC if they are sleepless about it and, in turn, are
menacing some other area of import to us (i have no example, and am
merely speaking in the abstract). Conversely, they must always be on the
lookout to expand their reach, so from this perspective, then we are
obviously at odds with them ...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Whether and how much to compromise is always part of real-politik in such
situations, but often in ICANN we seem to find ourselves with a strong view
which ICANN doesn't share and so the question them comes as to whether
sticking to the strong case gets us no say in what actually happens or
whether it means the end result is slightly less bad. The danger of the
current proposal from staff is that we're not just giving a little, but
creating something at least as bad as the worst excesses of UDRP and possibly
much worse. The compromise suggested at the start of this discussion in
NCSG/NCUC is already giving a little, and we have the joint support of ALAC
for the stance of giving a little to avoid giving away most if not all of the
field.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Thank you for this, i am but a surface dweller here. All and all,
the more objections we allow, the more careful to stray on the side
of the defendant we should be, when it comes to conflict
resolutions. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:201101130903.p0D93QVw011234@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Andrew, how does internationalisation mix in? phishing attempt by way
of, say, cyrillic caracaters? Then i guess i would support objections
based on "confusing similarity" with another tld.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
This is one of the issues about internationalisation, certainly. THere are
potentially many others. Roman representations for systems without the
character set comes to mind. There was a (in)famous example of a two-letter
encoding of Veitnamese used before Unicode was common where two of the most
common phonemes in Vietnamese were represented as "IT" and "SH", leading to
all sorts of fun with GENie (IIRC) English bad-language filters. There's the
"scunthorpe" issue multiplied into other languages (take letters 2-5 of that
UK place name if you don't know this one: the French equivalent word uses an
"o" instead of a "u" and the ISP in question allowed "sconthorpe" but not
"scunthorpe" to be registered as a userid). I don't know of any, but there
may well be Japanese/Chinese kanji/hanzi words where it's normal in one
language but rude and offensive in the other.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Yeah .... my opinion (which could change with a few swift strokes of
many of you guys' keyboards) is to not even try to <i>a priori</i>
refuse sub-strings that are "obscene". If a string is an attempt to
camouflage for misleading purposes, then i guess it would have to
confusingly imitate something, and this is the way to go about
regulating it (i guess, but see previous parenthesis). Blacklisting
of obscene strings is doomed to have many cracks but i am weary of
systems that go out of their way to allow no cracks at all. Please
forgive me if my .02 showed more of my ignorance than it illuminated
the issues.<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:201101130903.p0D93QVw011234@lyorn.meiji.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>