<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [soac-mapo]
- To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo]
- From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:46:32 -0700
Hi Richard,
Actually in this message I was specifically referring to the GAC
proposal of protecting the laundry list of "sensitivities". The DAG4
says nothing about protecting "sensitivities", but rather provides
for these incitement legal standards. They are two different
standards. Whatever one thinks about the DAG4 "incitement"
proposals, the GAC's proposed standard of protecting "sensitivities"
is an over-reach and far beyond what the GNSO approved and far beyond
what is in DAG4. Hope that clarifies my previous message.
Thanks,
Robin
On Aug 30, 2010, at 8:30 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
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
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|