The potential of a .kids or similar tld is too important to be jettisoned
for the reasons that have been articulated.
Although it may be true
that the existing applicants have failed to state a sufficiently precise set of criteria
for approving .kids sites, this does should not cause rejection of the proposal.
The public policy issue in creating the .kids tld is vital, involving one of the
most widely-discussed and troublesome aspects of the increasing availability of the
Internet. Assuming arguendo that the stated criteria are too vague, the applicants
should (all) be invited to make them more precise and resubmit.
ICANN's
comment concering the differing cultural definitions of what is appropriate for children
(and that it is unclear who would decide such things) is, at best, a non sequitur.
One can invoke cultural relativism as a way of rejecting nearly any ethical or policy-based
filtering mechanism. There is, nontheless, broad consensus in many countries
as to the sorts of content to which children should not be exposed. A set of
criteria matching this consensus is easily possible; although it would not satisfy
everyone (what ever does?) it would certainly provide a useful response to the increasingly
hysterical calls for the legislative strangulation of the Net. --Kenneth
L. Schneyer
--Professor of Legal Studies
--Johnson & Wales University
|
|
|