discussion on xxx domain? [ncsg-policy] Draft NCSG comments to GNSO Council on Rec 6

Sat Jan 15 23:12:27 CET 2011

+1

Well said, Dan.

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> 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:dwi.elfrida at depkominfo.go.id>dwi.elfrida at depkominfo.go.id> 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
---------------------------------------------------------------