[governance] Where are we going?

[Demi Getschko]

Hi Robin! I am a newcomer to the list and saw you your text. I do not
think that anyone here is against free speech. But I really do not see
a direct relationship between TLDs and free speech. Let me try an
example ( btw, as an engineer, I always try to test a concept against
its limits using some - imperfect - analogies).
- may be we could compare TDL with labels, or official public sign on
the streets/roads.
- one  can run any business anyone wants at the shops on streets, but
we do not allow signs to all those business. The signs are more
adequately used to show a limit set of global resources and, usually,
that do not offend or scandalize the majority.. We usually do not have
signs on the streets that points to an abortion clinic but, yes, we do
have signs that point to hospitals, without entering in such
inadequate details...

If a sizable part of the community fell bad about some name, sign,
picture (like those at the displays or posters on the streets, may be
we would be intolerant if we force the people to look to something
they do not like. This has nothing to do with the content itself, just
the advertising of the content. In the internet, as we have to deal
with thousands of cultures and susceptibilities, I really do not think
is *fair* or *global* to impose the values of part of this community
to the totum...
(just my 2 cents)
best

demi



On 4/5/07, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> There seems to be some confusion about what speech is being regulated in
> a new gtld policy that prohibits controversial ideas in the string.
> Countries who outlaw abortion are not forced into a conversation about
> abortion because a gtld of .abortion has been created.  Countries are
> very good at blocking access to domain names that offend them.  I was in
> Tunis and tried to access a number of websites that discuss civil
> liberties and was not able to because the government blocked their
> access.  They didn't need ICANN to prevent that speech for them.
>
>  "We" are not in a position to impose a conversation about abortion in
> countries that choose to block .abortion.  The govt makes that decision
> for that country and blocks access.  But ICANN policy will be imposed on
> everyone.  If ICANN chooses to prevent .abortion because some countries
> are offended by it then those who have chosen to have that conversation
> and who have a legal right to that conversation are prevented.
>
> What you are saying is that "we" may not have a discussion at .abortion.
>
> Imposing all intolerances cumulatively on everyone is a terrible policy
> choice.  Please leave room for those who want to have a discussion at
> .abortion to have that discussion.  Please do not decide for everyone in
> the world that that conversation can't happen because that right has not
> evolved in all countries.  Those countries will block that speech
> without needing ICANN to prevent it.
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>
> Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> > Milton Mueller ha scritto:
> >
> >> You are thus advocating
> >> self-censorship and deference to authority, in the hopes that that will
> >> buy ICANN some time. The attitude is, "don't do anything that will
> >> provoke people."
> >
> >
> > There is a basic point that I think needs to be done here, even if it
> > brings us much farther than Internet governance itself.
> >
> > What you call "self-censorship and deference to authority" (thus
> > implying that governments speak for the sake of authority rather than
> > to convey an actual feeling of their citizens, something that would at
> > least deserve case by case evaluation) could be considered by others
> > basic respect for different opinions, especially when the issues touch
> > into the personal sphere of ethics.
> >
> > For example, I am an atheist and in my country blasphemy is not
> > forbidden by law, but still I don't go around saying blasphemies about
> > the gods of whatever religion, even if I'm technically free to do that.
> >
> > So, I consider abortion a right of every woman, but I would not see
> > why you would want to make headlines by creating a .abortion TLD, thus
> > possibly offending and provoking those cultures and individuals which
> > have not matured that right yet. Note that this does not prevent
> > abortion itself, where legal, or its discussion in any way! It's just
> > overloading the domain name system with content-related value battles
> > that do not pertain to it.
> >
> > I understand that the "respect" or "decency" argument is often used as
> > an excuse to promote actual censorship. However, I think that in
> > certain cases it is a valid argument and will become more valid as the
> > world gets further integrated and needs more inclusion and reciprocal
> > understanding; there needs to be a specific evaluation and balancing
> > of different views and sensitivities. You need a tolerant attitude
> > towards other people's taboos, or even just different views of the
> > world; and an approach that uses dialogue to let people freely grow
> > out of them, rather than aggressive vindication of your supposed
> > freedom to disregard them.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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