FW: [ncsg-policy] Draft NCSG comments to GNSO Council on Rec 6

[Baudouin SCHOMBE]

"
The world is too complex for most short strings to be objectionable in
anythign but a highly localised and subjective way. As far as I can tell
about the only things which might reasonably be banned from creation as
generics are things that can cause confusion (such as recognised country
names) and a very small set which most would agree are too troubling for
almost everyone (the only one of these that comes to my mind is
.paedophile)."


I understand your position on this approach but you have so aptly pointed
out in your last sentence is one of my concerns. It is true that we live in
different cultures but are at a crossroads. It is true that .XXX is harmless
according to you. But this is not the same reading in most of our African
cultures. Pedophilia has a source. Should we internationalize pedophilia by
. XXX ? I think it is necessary to be consistent and to analyze the
recommendation point by point.

Baudouin


2011/1/12 Andrew A. Adams <aaa at meiji.ac.jp>

> I disagree with Dwi and Schombe here. The reason that the ALAC statement
> stressed that settled international law (UN resolutions and treaties with
> broad though not necessarily universal accession) should form the only
> basis
> on which objections could be made is precisely because of the vast
> differences in national law and culture which the Internet spans. Should
> .jihad be banned because the term Jihad has been misinterpreted to mean the
> armed struggle by Muslims against non-Muslims? Should .ira be banned from
> introduction as a financial services TLD because of the terrorist
> association
> with that name (and various modifiers) still in operation in Northern
> Ireland? Should .poppy be banned from being adopted by peace campaigners
> and
> war dead remembrance sites because the poppy is the source of opiates?
>
> So far, yes, NCSG has supported the creation of .xxx because there has been
> no solid argument put forward that its existence would have any significant
> net (sorry for the pun) effect on the amount of erotic material (or porn,
> or
> obscenity, YMMV) available online.
>
> The world is too complex for most short strings to be objectionable in
> anythign but a highly localised and subjective way. As far as I can tell
> about the only things which might reasonably be banned from creation as
> generics are things that can cause confusion (such as recognised country
> names) and a very small set which most would agree are too troubling for
> almost everyone (the only one of these that comes to my mind is
> .paedophile).
>
> Artificial scarcity is one of the things holding back the Internet from
> achieving its full transformative potential. Let's not collude in another
> attempt to re-inforce this scarcity.
>
>
>
> --
> Professor Andrew A Adams                      aaa at meiji.ac.jp
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110112/4d05e907/attachment-0001.html>