Re: [soac-mapo]

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Robin,

I think you're arguing (below) there should be no Objection process.  Is that 
right?

If so, I respect your views on that,  but our ToR are not about whether or not 
there should be a process.  Our task is to improve the current implementation 
in DAG4.

I don't think this is an impossible task.    I think when we start to see 
alternate proposals (with actual language) we may find some common ground.  

RT


 
On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:53 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> If there is any censoring of tlds to be done, it needs to be done by those 
> with political accountability for that decision: governments.  It needs to be 
> done by those with appropriate legal mechanisms to protect a variety of 
> rights: governments.   
> 
> ICANN is poorly situated to undertake doing the "dirty work" of censoring 
> tlds in the (perhaps honorable) mission of "protecting sensitivities".
> 
> Sorry, but GAC's request that ICANN protect "sensitivities" of this long list 
> of hot-button issues is asking for the moon.  It invites ICANN to get in the 
> middle of a myriad of legal, political, religious, linguistic, & cultural 
> battles in a way that harms ICANN's ability to focus on its technical 
> mission, to govern legitimately and to protect itself legally.  I don't think 
> it is a fair request for ICANN to be put in the position of protecting these 
> "sensitivities".   That is a role for local governments and one which they 
> will continue to hold regardless of ICANN policy.  Govts have tools at their 
> disposal like local laws (and jails) that protect their individual cultural, 
> religious, etc. "sensitivities".  They don't need a global ban on a tld to do 
> that.  It is an over-reach that ICANN would be wise to resist.
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Aug 30, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> 
>> 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")
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
>