[governance] new TLDs? Lee in Wonderland

[Lee McKnight]

Danny kindly pointed out my misdirection of my contribution, trying to
helping
    us move on to the next topics, so here we go again:
    
    >>> Lee McKnight 08/29/05 9:43 PM >>>
     I must have missed something, because if I am following the gist
of
    the TLD thread properly:
    1) we object to US unilateral control of the net, except when that
    control is used to regulate content we may or may not personally
object
    to 
    1)a (and since the line drawn here is perfectly clear, there is no
need
    to be alarmist about this, just relax, this is a special case)
    2) the root zone file is really really small, so we should not make
it
    bigger, except of course we must make it bigger because of DNSSec,
but
    not to worry, we know bigger is no problem - but we must make it
no
    bigger than that, except when we do (eventually add multilingual
gTLDs)
    
    3) and of course we know permitting many more gTLDs would reduce
their
    scarcity value and make it less likely we would argue about them,
but we
    prefer arguing about them, except in this case, where three x's in
a row
    are really offensive and just dumb, except to the rest of the
world
    which wishes more attention would be paid to making it easier to
add
    other scripts and many multilingual domains and - dare I say it? 
gTLDs...
    
    As we now appear to have reached a rough consensus on points 1-3,
perhaps we can move on
    the list to thinking about matters such as PrepCom 3, and the
forum, and...
   
    Lee
    
    
    
        >>> Danny Butt <db at dannybutt.net> 08/29/05 5:58 PM >>>
    I agree that netizen is an elitist concept in practice, if not so
bad 
    
    in theory. More pragmatically, citizenship of nation-states exists 

    whether we like it or not, and no amount of becoming netizen
changes  
    the way we are subject to the decisions of nation-states. Unlike  
    citizenship, there is no institutional structure that pressure can
be 
    
    applied to when there are contests over the term "netizen" or how
it  
    is used to justify people's positions - so one is just left with  
    assertions and "dialogue". I realise that is seen as a benefit by 

    those who promote its use, but I think in the WSIS context there is
a 
    
    need to be more applied to specific issues that can at least  
    potentially aid development.
    
    Re: new TLDs, Milton, while I agree with you that "competition,  
    diversity and multilingualism" will require some new TLDs, in  
    practical terms I fail to see how .xxx addresses my work on
fostering 
    
    the last two goals. Instead, it is a marker of the lack of
diversity  
    and US-centric biases of the current regime. From my POV the  
    potential benefit of .xxx in fostering competition doesn't outweigh
 
    the fact that advocating its existence in the WSIS context against
so 
    
    much opposition is, um, obscene, given that we still can't provide
a  
    DNS that lets people use their own language scripts, and that TLDs 

    are so obviously driven by commercial interests.  Yes, there is a 

    process issue that is important. But to ignore the content of the
TLD 
    
    in the discussion is a dangerous strategy. I can't see how pumping 

    for an industry that makes money out of sex is really going to
serve  
    CS credibility that well.
    
    [for the record, in the larger scheme of things i couldn't care
less  
    whether .xxx exists or not]
    
    Danny
    
    --
    http://www.dannybutt.net 
    Cultural Futures - December 1-5, 2005 - http:// 
    culturalfutures.place.net.nz
    
    On 30/08/2005, at 9:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
    
    >
    > On 29 aug 2005, at 21.14, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
    >
    >
    >> The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred
to
    men
    >> only. Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the
slaves
    who
    >> were did the bread and butter work. What makes me feel
    uncomfortable
    >> about the concept of netizens is that it seems to identify an  
    >> elite of
    >> people on the net. But this is more of a personal impression,
    >> nothing I
    >> could substantiate.
    >>
    >
    > The issue i have, is that one ultimate goal is to spread the net
to
    > all people.  so on the day of success, all citizens become
netizens
    > and the term loses any specific meaning.  and in the meantime it
    does
    > seem to be restricted to those citizens who are lucky enough to
have
    > network connectivity.
    >
    > So I think I agree that netizen is an elite concept.  Beyond
that, I
    > don't understand why we need a concept beyond people, with the
    > understanding that all people are to be considered as much as
    > possible in governance, and all those who can and who are
interested
    > should have access to the governance discussions and process.
    >
    > i have no strong objection to neologisms and this one is no
    > different, but i really don't see what purpose it serves, or what
it
    > adds.  though the discussion over its meaning and importance
might
    be
    > important in itself.  and of course that is one of the main
reasons
    > for neologisms, to get people to look at things in a different
    > light.  but at this point i think the negative connotation of
the
    > term, the 'them and us' aspect, outweighs the value of contextual
 
    > shift.
    >
    > a.
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > governance mailing list
    > governance at lists.cpsr.org 
    > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance 
    


Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance