[governance] Where are we going?

[Demi Getschko]

Karl, this is exacty my argument. May be we do not want to be in the
very same situation you are depicting below... I do not make
judgements about what kind of symbol a given religion/sect choose but,
for the same reason, I think have to avoid incurring in the same
errors, and impinging to others signs and symbols that could be
offensive to them... This (I suppose) is on of the main reasons to
have the public comments period.
best
demi

On 4/5/07, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
> Demi Getschko wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Consider for example overt depictions of a man being tortured to death by being
> nailed to a pair of wooden timbers and being forced to wear a crown of thorns
> and pierced by a spear.
>
> It would not be hard to find people who do not like such displays.
>
> Should we then require the various Christian churches to abandon placing such
> displays on and in their buildings?
>
> Here in the US we long ago found it both infeasible and wrong to muzzle those
> who speak, or the names they use to advertise their existence (which is itself
> a form of speech) on the grounds that it might annoy some people or even make
> them intolerant.  One of the few exceptions is one of extreme circumstances in
> which the speech or the sign is equivalent to an intentional or highly reckless
> physical act designed to elicit a dangerous physical response; and we certainly
> do not have that (yet) in any top level domain name that has been proposed.
>
> It is for reasons like this that I believe that the first principle of internet
> governance is that it should confine itself to matters that have a clear,
> direct, and compelling relationship to technical matters.
>
> For example, governance that deals with mechanisms through which end users (or
> their agents) can arrange for end-to-end, multi-ISP, pathways adequate to
> sustain usable VOIP would be a reasonable matter for internet governance.
>
> On the other hand, dividing domain names on the basis of perceived business
> plans, who operates them, or their customer base, all of these being non
> technical, really are not proper matters of internet governance. They are,
> instead better left to the normal work of national legislatures and the slow
> process of international agreements.
>
>                 --karl--
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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