Dear Sirs or Madams:In reply to the ICANN Staff Report of 9 November 2000, and
in light of factual inaccuracies therein, .Kids Domains, Inc. (KDI) wishes
to respectfully present our rebuttal. Acknowledgement of this letter and commencement
of further communication is positive proof that the application process is indeed
open, transparent, accountable, and fair, and we are extremely grateful to the ICANN
Board and cognizant of the magnitude of work and effort from them.
The 9 November
Staff Report states: “given the difficult definitional issues inherent in a .kids
TLD, together with the limitations of existing technology and the approaches suggested
by these proposals, it is questionable whether these applicants would be able to
meet the unmet need and provide an effective proof of concept.”
KDI has borrowed
heavily from international bodies such as UNESCO and UNICEF in defining issues.
Our restricted content policy is based on laws and organizations around the world
including, but not limited to: UNESCO, UNICEF, ABA (Australia), Bertelsmann Foundation(Germany),
Singapore Broadcasting Authority Act, ACLU, MPAA, Euroli Council Conclusions, and
the United States law.
We believe that the “limitations of existing technology”
refers to electronic filtering methodology and technology. While we expect
these technologies to enhance the security of our content policy and facilitate the
audits specified in our application, our reliance is based upon a private, binding
contract with registrants agreeing to the content and policies in our application.
We are not proposing to be a restricted TLD by way of forbidding content. Rather,
we restrict registration to those registrants who, through private contract, agree
with our policy and content. Therefore we become a network neighborhood of
like-minded groups that have contracted a desire to proceed in a common direction
with common goals and common protocols. Individuals from the IPC have provided
solid feedback in support of this concept.
The 9 November Staff Report states:
“While .KIDS Domains recognizes and attempts to deal with the issue of "what content
is appropriate", its proposal does not address the larger conceptual concern whether
a self-appointed TLD sponsor should make these decisions.”
Again borrowing
from organizations around the world, such as UNESCO: “that there is broad international
consensus that certain kinds of content, which may be appropriate for adults to access,
is unsuitable for children.” The concept of shielding or protecting our children
from harmful content is not only global, but also timeless. In fact, global
concern and comment is so prevalent, that it is not a difficult task to establish
common ground at the base level. KDI has adopted this approach in establishing
our Content Policy. We have never set precedence, but rather relied on International
Organizations, Foundations, Seminars, and Legal codes that are focused on Children.
KDI asserts that the “larger conceptual concern” is really whether we will make a
start and address a patent and looming problem. It is important to point out
that KDI is not attempting to limit the Internet, but define a section of it as a
greenspace. Similar to a “G” movie in a world that promotes and accepts the
entire range of ratings, or the FoxKids channel on the cable that features the spectrum
of content.
The 9 November staff report states: “The evaluation team believes that
in order to be successful in meeting unmet needs and providing an effective proof
of concept of a safe online domain for children, an applicant for a .kids TLD must
be able to deliver on the explicit or implicit public expectation of suitable content.
At this juncture, it appears that there are no technical or other means to ensure
that unsuitable material is not available to children while the applicants rely on
partial measures that are not self-executing and that seem certain in execution to
fall short of public expectation.”
KDI congratulates the ICANN staff report in
recognizing that there are currently unmet needs of children and parents regarding
the Internet. Public expectations will absolutely be unmet should ICANN decide
not to issue a .kids TLD. In the short period of time that has elapsed since
the staff report was published, KDI has received support and request for establishment
of a .kids TLD from over two hundred individuals around the world. It is significant
to us that every individual or organization that has engaged us in discussion has
come along side us and agreed with our goal and the urgent need for a .kids TLD.
We feel confident that our experience with children and children’s welfare organizations,
our partners, and supporting organizations (I-Safe, KidsSearch, StudentCashCard,
Yosemite Sierra Summer Camp, Amazing Kids) are at least as competent at judging public
expectations and public needs as ICANN, a self-defined technical body.
We agree
wholeheartedly with the Bertelsmann Foundation that “More people will migrate online
when they are confident that their families will not be exposed to harmful content”
and we urge ICANN to act positively to establish something for kids.
Respectfully
submitted,
H. Page Howe
Chairman
.Kids Domains, Inc.