[governance] Where are we going?

[Robin Gross]

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