[governance] Where are we going?

[George Sadowsky]

Milton,

I'm focusing solely upon the character strings that make up TLDs. 
I'm not focusing on free speech in other aspects of domain naming, or 
of life in general.  In particular, I'm not talking about any level 
of a domain name other than the top level.

What I am arguing is that there are character strings that, in a 
multicultural world, are broadly and specifically very offensive, and 
that the Internet will not suffer if one or more of those are not 
chosen as TLD names.

BTW, my comment in Lisbon was an exaggerated caricature and was meant 
have some humorous content, contrasting espousal of free speech with 
the requirement that everyone must accept it.  I'm sorry if you 
didn't recognize it as such.  You are obviously not a nazi; we both 
understand that.

I think that what is missing in your argument is the recognition that 
we live in a multicultural world and that the Internet is a global 
phenomenon.  A minimum of decency and respect for the sensitivities 
of others would go a long way in making the evolution of Internet 
governance less contentious and more productive  ---  WITHOUT IN ANY 
WAY compromising the ability of the Internet to contain or provide 
any kind of legal content on it.

What's wrong with that?

More comments inserted below.

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 12:09 PM -0400 4/5/07, Milton Mueller wrote:
>  >>> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 4/4/2007 9:26 AM >>>
>>I worry that the "free speech imperialism" that
>>characterizes some positions regarding TLDs and
>>the segmentation of the domain name space
>>espoused today is an unproductive attempt to foist a
>>moderately narrow and parochial view of the world
>>onto a global structure, and that it will be
>>counterproductive.
>
>George,
>Name-calling of this sort is strangely Orwellian. You are calling me
>and other liberals who are concerned about the obvious resitrctions
>being imposed on TLD strings  "imperialists" and "free speech nazis"
>(this is what you called me in Lisbon, remember?).
>
>By resisting ICANN's TLD policy all I am trying to do is leave the door
>open to diversity, contending ideas, controversial ideas and not have
>anything that powerful people don't like immediately thrown out of
>consideration. Tell me how this is "imperialistic," if you care to
>engage in rational discourse. Who am I forcing to do what by telling a
>global authority that it shouldn't censor domains?

You are potentially forcing people who use the Internet to confront 
symbols at the top level of the Internet, a very visible level, with 
powerful negative emotional content for them as a class, with no 
benefit except to please those who confront.  Take my nazi example if 
you like, or take any pejorative term applied to any large class of 
people.  Would you argue that if the Ku Klux Klan wanted to establish 
a TLD .nigg*r that it should be permitted?  I am absolutely sure that 
you would get _their_ community support for that.

>
>On the other hand, won't the policies you advocate reward intolerance?
>Aren't you are saying that any entity in the world that doesn't like
>someone else's label or speech will have grounds to challenge it and
>kill it. Is that not more akin to the policies of imperialist and
>fascist states than anything we are advocating?

I suppose that there is a very small risk of that, and you may invoke 
the slippery slope argument if you want.  I see it somewhat 
differently  --  as tolerance for the sensitivities of others.  I am 
relatively sure that a reasonable system of governance would provide 
an effective screen for rejecting frivolous challenges.

>
>I do not, of course, believe that you are either an imperialist or a
>nazi and would never use those terms against you. Instead, I suspect
>that you believe that you can avoid controversy and make ICANN's life
>easier and gain political acceptance for it.

This has nothing to do with making ICANN's life easier. It has to do 
with getting on to realize the good things that the Internet has to 
offer and not get hung up on issues that have nothing to do with its 
content.

>  You are thus advocating
>self-censorship and deference to authority,

I thought that I was advocating for tolerance in a multicultural world.

>  in the hopes that that will
>buy ICANN some time.

My concern encompasses a much larger scope of civil behavior than ICANN.

>  The attitude is, "don't do anything that will
>provoke people." Apparently you fail to recognize that the price of this
>kind of appeasement of power never works long term, it only feeds their
>appetite for more control.

It's interesting that you put it in terms of appeasement of power  -- 
quite a confrontational stance.  I think of it as living together in 
a civilized manner.  Perhaps we should be discussing how a revised 
ICANN, with the assistance of other sectors, can establish rules for 
a TLD process that recognizes this possibility and incorporates 
mechanisms to avoid it.

>
>And the subterranean anger you express by using unfair and strong terms
>such as "imperialist" and "nazi" indicates nothing about me, only how
>threatened you must feel by these efforts to clearly identify the
>implications of what ICANN is doing.

Milton, now you are being silly, maybe on purpose, I can't tell.  I 
am not threatened.  I do use humor and I do exaggerate from time to 
time to make a point.  The serious point here is that in the name of 
free speech (which I like also, by the way), and from what appears to 
be a uni-cultural mindset on your part, you are trying to force 
everyone to accept your notion of how far free speech should go.  I 
think that is reprehensible, and I think that you should reconsider 
your premises.   Wearing cultural blinders in multicultural settings 
does not serve one well.

>
>There is no such thing as a "free speech nazi," George. Freedom of
>expression and action are the antithesis of those concepts and the only
>real safeguards against the intolerance and top-down control associated
>with those ideologies.

How about forcing free speech down everyone's throat (metaphorically 
speaking)?  That is in effect what you want to do.  I do remember 
that when you said "fuck" in one of your interventions in Lisbon you 
waited until it appeared on the screen and you seemed very pleased 
about it.  Now you may well have offended some (but not all, and not 
me) of the people in the room, but you clearly didn't care one bit 
about that.

I characterize that behavior as consciously and purposefully rude. 
Do you want to be remembered as that kind of a person?

George




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance