Re: [soac-mapo] Is selective blocking by local governments really a problem?

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bertrand - you are correct that we are talking about blocking a whole TLD -- 
sort of.  

My point was not that we should decide what gets blocked, but that every 
community decides on their own what to block -- including entire TLDs.

I remember several years ago that .nu, .to and others were blocked because some 
ISP, somewhere, decided that they were originators of spam.  So whole classes 
of people were not able to access those TLDs.  This was corrected because 
enough users complained, and because this community (the U.S.) did not want to 
block at TLD wholesale.  But I am told that today entire TLDs are blocked. 

I re-iterate that the entire idea of .XXX is to allow communities who don't 
want to see X-rated materials -- or whose community leaders have decided that 
they shouldn't.  So this is not a new concept.

It may be far more dangerous to set the precedent of disallowing gTLDs at the 
ICANN level than it is to let communities decide to do it on their own, however 
wrong-headed we think they may be.   The goal of universal interoperability is 
always going to be something just out of reach because various controls -- 
whether they are governmental or just parental -- are always going to be 
imposed by those whose position it is to decide what other people should have 
access to.   This is a problem -- to the extent that is a problem -- of 
politics, not of the Internet. 

I believe it would be much wiser of ICANN to divest themselves of the 
censorship function and let those who are willing to face the opprobrium of the 
rest of the world implement it as they see fit -- or not.  

Antony




On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:

> Just one quick point before I get to bed : 
> 
> Let's be careful : we are talking about restricting access to a whole Top 
> Level domain, not about restrictions at a more granular level. Examples of 
> blocking of individual content is not pertinent here. So far, there are very 
> rare exceptions (I actually only heard of one case and in very few countries) 
> where a whole TLD among the 270 or so is being blocked. 
> 
> This distinction must be kept in mind. With the notion of granularity : any 
> blocking should ideally be done at the lowest granular level (ie : a single 
> content on YouTube rather than the whole YouTube site). This is why there is 
> some concern if we end up with a proliferation of TLDs that would be blocked 
> at that level. 
> 
> The question is how can we limit those cases without infringing upon broader 
> rights (Freedom of expression, but I would also say Freedom of association, 
> which in many cases could be considered even more relevant).
> 
> Best
> 
> B.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight 
> <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 30 Aug 2010, at 21:58, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> 
> > What's the conflict between varying degrees of permissiveness and the 
> > principle of the single, interoperable web?
> >
> > At first glance it seems intractable.  If the lowest common denominator is 
> > used, so that the entire world will see only what the least permissive 
> > society allows, then as Avri points out it would intolerable for most of 
> > us.  On the other hand, If local communities are not allowed to block what 
> > they deem offensive (e.g., much of the Internet, in the UAE's case), they 
> > will go off and create another Internet according to their standards, and 
> > the unified root remains an ideal but is no longer a reality.   To me, this 
> > has always seemed to be the biggest conceptual hurdle.
> >
> > But the problem may not be so great.  While Evan's litany of what the UAE 
> > censors block is shocking to many of us, we should consider that there are 
> > plenty of instances in the "west" where we are not allowed to see certain 
> > content.   This includes financial information of others, medical records, 
> > anything behind a paywall, anything that requires a password that you don't 
> > have.   In some hotels and airline lounges, you can connect to the 
> > Internet, but only browse the company site until the staff gives you a 
> > code.   This is not what the UAE blocks (though they might block this as 
> > well), but they are nonetheless limitations on our ability to use the 
> > Internet.  There are many such examples.
> 
> I could add a few others ..
> 
> Schools and educational institutions in Ireland impose limitations on what 
> students can access.
> 
> A lot of businesses restrict what their staff can access
> 
> And the entire filtering debate is kicking off again over here .. ..
> 
> >
> > In each case, you have a local community allowing some content and 
> > disallowing other content, for reasons of policy, morality, property, 
> > privacy and so on.   And yet we still have a unified root and we still have 
> > national laws and customs.  Local communities must (and do) have the right 
> > and ability to some or all users from viewing certain content.  Everyone 
> > does it, for the reasons that appear right to them.
> >
> > From this perspective, what we ought then to consider in our group is not 
> > what may be sensitive or not, but rather what rises to the level where the 
> > very existence of the top-level domain causes damage to a large number of 
> > people.  There are obvious examples of such TLDs.  For example, the mere 
> > fact of a TLD whose name mocks or incites violence against some group of 
> > people is very likely to be intolerable to the targeted group.   This, I 
> > think, is a legitimate reason for blocking a TLD application.  If the TLD 
> > name isn't in itself deeply offensive, then we're talking about content 
> > within the TLD, and at that point it's up to local authorities, and 
> > individuals who use the Internet, to block content that they find 
> > offensive.  That blocked content might even include an entire TLD -- which 
> > is kind of the premise upon which .XXX was built.
> >
> > This is definitely not the venue for deciding what value system is 
> > superior.  Every society blocks some content, so far without great harm to 
> > the Internet.  So my suggestion is that for the purposes of this group, 
> > which is dedicated to considering questions of morality, is that we forget 
> > about what content the TLD is likely to have (a guess at best), and 
> > concentrate only on the name itself.  I think it will make our task much 
> > easier.
> >
> > Antony
> 
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
> ICANN Accredited Registrar
> http://www.blacknight.com/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://blacknight.mobi/
> http://mneylon.tel
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> US: 213-233-1612
> UK: 0844 484 9361
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the 
> Information Society
> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign 
> and European Affairs
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
> 
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint 
> Exupéry
> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")