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

[Dwi Elfrida Martina S]

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
>>>> <dwi.elfrida at depkominfo.go.id<mailto:dwi.elfrida at depkominfo.go.id>>
>>>> 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
>>>> aaa at meiji.ac.jp<mailto: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/
>>>>      >
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>