<--
We have allowed
the so called freedoms of the Internet to go too far and it is time to reclaim a
portion of it as a safe place for our kids to play, communicate, and
learn. I
often advise our visitors that the
-->I can only assume in mute horror (well,
not so mute, I guess :-) ) that you are joking. First of all whose kids are
you talking about? Yours, someone's in Saudia Arabia, someone's in Sweden?
These
kids may all require a very different "playground". You see, your
kids, with average (US??) value system may consider displays of "innocent affection"
acceptable, while any suggestive sexual display is "blatant pornography" (I'm not
saying whitehouse.com isn't, mind you but not everything YOU think necassarily is).
Saudia children however are supposed to be taught that it is inappropriate for women
to even assume the role of a man -- including driving in public. Swedes on
the otherhand believe that their children should be exposed to very open sexuallity
and that they should not repress their natural instincts (I guess I let my personal
feelings come out here :-) ). How do you, or KDI for that matter, propose to
meet the cultural requirements of all these different countries, to say nothing of
individual differences within a country. I hope you do not propose to relegate
these issues to ccTLDs with the .kids defaulting to US cultural sensibilities.
If
I may point out some concrete examples off KDI's TLD policy page:
"It is illegal
to sell alcohol to minors in all 50 US States."
thus (in table format):
"Because
children are the only constituency, the advertising of alcoholic products, promotion
by and for the alcohol industry, links to alcohol industry sites or promotional material
will be strictly prohibited on .kids websites."
Guess what -- many french people
think kids should drink wine (oh, horror of horrors)!
and
"The first amendment
does not protect threats, and that includes racial epithets and racial animus."
"The
laws regarding the distribution of pornography to minors in the will apply to all
sites in the .kids network."
"The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998
states ..."
I think that's enough. Yes, the US does host by far the vast
majority of the Internet, and yes, it may even have some admirable moral standards
(though I think people familiar with what real freedom of speech and thought are
in some parts of the world might find the US a little stuffy), but there is a wider
world out there, and we'd like to be part of the Internet as well. KDI has
demonstrated an insufferable callousness to this issue ... I didn't see mention of
any kind of internationl orientation in their registration policy what so ever (I
admit, I was just skimming, but I certainly didn't get any sense of it). At
least the other .kids proposal's have some awareness of the issue -- dotKids mentions
something about an international regionally based kids policies (well, I kind of
skimmed there as well, but if you check you'll probably find it).
<--
Therefore,
KidSurf Online supports this application and rejects the others due to their non-restrictive
nature. If there are not policies and an approval process, th
en we will find
whitehouse.kids just another mirror of whitehouse.com
I question the motives of
those who make applications for .kids without policies in place to assure the safety
of our kids. Is the interest only in exploiting the TL
D for monetary gain or
is it truly in the best interest of our children?
-->
Exactly why do you
think KDI's regulatory system is superior to everyone elses. KDI seems to make
the same vague generalizations about registrar's needing to agree to some .kids regulatory
contract and having to sign in. They vaguely touch on the issue of self-audits
or independent audits of larger sites. I havn't found any detailed description
of how this is to be fairly and effectively enacted. Obviously any .kids application
will require registrars to adhere to some kind of contract, and audits will be necassary
to enforse these contracts or else the whole idea of a "child-safe" internet won't
work, but why do you think KDI is so well positioned to do it? I, for one,
find it unacceptable that a company proposing to regulate a "green-light district"
of internet for children has demonstrated a complete ignorance of the world beyond
their own national borders, defying the concept of the Internet and international
organizations such as a ICANN and IANA that are supposed to regulate it
for EVERYBODY's
benefit.
Brahim Meloud