Saudi Arabia objects to some new gTLDs

[Clarinettet]

Could it be even argued that creating .budda or .xxx or .baby could keep groups of same interest bound together and therefore avoid non sex, non budda, etc... To, inadvertendly bump to each other. No more babies lost in x and buddist with sexist, etc...?

Tara Taubman

IT/IP Lawyer
FlyAKite.org
Sent from my iPad

On 16 Aug 2012, at 00:03, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:

>  
>  
> From: Andrei Barburas [mailto:abarburas at iicd.org] 
> 
> Just because there will be no gTLD like for example, .buddha, that doesn't mean that people will not be able to find information about Buddha. The same applies to gambling, sex, poker, tattoos and pretty much all the "moral grounds" the KSA based its objections.
>  
> [Milton L Mueller] Exactly right. Creating a .buddha TLD does not make more people Buddhists, any more than blocking the creation of .sex makes people less sexual. It is the same stupidity we had over the .xxx domain: Pretending that by banishing a name from the top level space, we can eliminate the referent from the internet, or from life. Government representatives seem especially prone to this fallacy. The US govt’s Suzanne Sene, for example, said with horror in reaction to the idea that  TLDs should not be censored, “My God, what if someone proposes .jihad?” As if the fate of jihad in the world somehow hinged on that.
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120816/d850e78a/attachment-0001.html>