[governance] Where are we going?
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Fri Apr 6 11:31:04 EDT 2007
A simple (and probably naïve) question here... What is to stop a domain
name such as .xxx.tv (or .f**kfest.cat for that matter) being
established or would it matter?
Would/could/should ICANN or whoever is the supreme authority here
maintain jurisdiction over the naming patterns of the sub-tld's (or the
organizations managing the existing tld's)... My understanding is that
they are in turn self-regulated but what if that doesn't work for some
reason or is it the case that any principles of governance in this area
established by ICANN will automatically filter down/out to the other
domain name governing bodies?
MG
-----Original Message-----
From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Izumi AIZU
Sent: April 6, 2007 7:27 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: Bertrand de La Chapelle
Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we going?
It's so difficult to catch-up!
Personally and very frankly, I don't feel like including .xxx to gTLD is
such a big deal, and by the same token, denying .xxx is also not the
most important policy issue for us.
I also tend to agree with what Bertrand wrote.
As Vittorio put it in the Board discussion in Lisbon, I see
big cultural differences in the .xxx debate, namely, most supporters of
.xxx to be added in the gTLD zone is from the US, except, perhaps Peter
Dengate Thrush from New Zealand also supported its inclusion, though I
am not sure how far New Zealand is from US socio-culturally ;-)
One phrase that comes to my mind around this debate is the famous one
John Barlow wrote ten years ago: "In Cyberspace, the First Amendment is
a local ordinance."
To me, it suggests that what is accepted in one country does not become
universal rule.
Of course, I understand many non-US people advocate Free speech and
which is in fact included in the Universal Declaration of Human Right,
not in US constitution alone, and our Japanese constitution also has the
similar clause.
However, definition/interpretation of free speech differ quite a lot -
which is most obviously displayed in the limit or acceptance of
porn/nudity expressions in different societies. Free speech in this
context is not absolute term by itself. New French rule concerning
religious expression is also another good example. Many Muslim
countries, they do not allow Western displays of nudes, right? Clearly,
here we do not have one universal rule be it real world or cyber world.
In the cyberspace, as Bertrand well described, where there is no
geographic progression of different cultures, the "g" TLD space, unlike
ccTLD space, is naturally regarded as more global space than
local/country/culture specific areas.
If so, to me it is quite natural for such proposal as .xxx to be
perceived as very offensive to some cultural/societal people. In Japan,
making ".xxx" as public label is almost unacceptable (though there are
some groups who might support this, of course). Please don't
misunderstand, while xxx, or hard-core porns are very much illegal,
so-called soft porns, quite bizarre photos and pictures are widely
distributed and displayed in general magazines or some TV commercials in
Japan. We just have different values and corresponding rules or systems.
I also think "bottom up consensus" in a community usually means that if
there is very strong opposition/dissent from some
communities/stakeholders remains, in good faith, then even that is a
minority, we should respect that and not take decision based on simple
majority even though the majority could not accept with the reasons
given from the minority. So, I may say that if .xxx proposal receives
such strong opposition from some cultures/societies, ignoring them and
put it into one sTLD is, even it is labeled and controlled as sTLD, may
not be the best solution now. If, as Karl argued well, there are 5,000
or 50,000 TLDs are implemented, then the weight of one .xxx may become
irrelevant. But that is still far from reality at this point - I like
that to happen, though, so that we can end this rather
counter-productive debate.
best,
izumi
2007/4/6, Demi Getschko <trieste at gmail.com>:
> Agreed, Bertrand!
>
> And just one more thing: I think all of us agree that in France there
> is freedom to profess any religion. Notwithstanding (and here I am
> *not* discussing the merit of the decision, just trying to make a
> distinction between free speech and free display of signs and,
> tentatively, one more analogy with TLDs), the France government in
> some way restricts public abusive display of religious symbols in the
> schools, like big crosses, the veil, the kippah etc etc. Best
>
> demi
>
>
>
> On 4/6/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello to all,
> >
> > Two simple remarks - on a personal basis :
> >
> > On the Milton / George debate :
> >
> > As it has already been mentionned, there are two extreme options
> > that simply do not work :
> > - anything accepted / legal in one country / culture should be
> > accepted / legal on the Internet as a whole;
> > - anything forbidden / illegal in one country / culture should be
> > forbidden on the Internet as a whole.
> >
> > Once we accept these two options must be out of the table, we are
> > confronted with much simpler questions : what should be the rules to
> > organize the coexistence of different value sets in the common space
> > of the Internet ? how are we going to discuss them ? and more than
> > anything : where ?
> >
> >
> > Regarding the Demi / Karl discussion :
> >
> > In the physical world, cultural spaces and the corresponding
> > communities are separated by some physical distance : the agreed
> > public signs for each community progressively evolve along a sort of
> > geographic continuum. To take Karl's pertinent example of the cross
> > : the symbol is very present in countries with strong christian
> > communities, much less in countries with other dominant religions.
> > Likewise for "porn" : any pharmacy in France today
> > - or many advertising billboards for that matter - display images
of women
> > so naked that they wouldn't have even been allowed in the "porn"
mags of my
> > youth and they would be considered very offensive for people with
very
> > strong muslim moral references for instance. I
> >
> > Community references evolve and what is agreed at one time in one
> > zone is deifferent from what is accepted as common in another time
> > or another zone. This is just a fact. And, let's be clear, this is
> > why countries implemented borders and sometimes fought aggressively
> > to defend their own conception of society rules - for better or
> > worse.
> >
> > Problem is : the Internet is a common space and it does not provide
> > similar boundaries or a continuum for progressively moving from one
> > cultural space to another. With a single click (or even without in
> > the case of pop-ups), it is just like a Star Trek Holodeck : as if
> > you were to move in one second from the most sexy Las Vegas table
> > dance club to the inner part of St Peter in Rome or the Kabbah in
> > Mecca. Or, to take another domain of reference : from the die-hard
> > Davos capitalist crowd to the strongest Porto Alegre
> > anti-globalization crowds.
> >
> > Those two examples show :
> > 1) that this mere distinction between a continuum in the physical
> > space and the Holodeck effect raises new problems : you do not deal
> > with the Internet space exactly the same way you deal with the
> > physical world; seems obvious but maybe worth reminding;
> > 2) that in certain cases (the Las Vegas - St Peter example) you may
> > deal with a difficulty to preserve free circulation through the
> > Internet Space while at the same time avoiding unnecessarily
> > offending people who would like to remainin a coherent space. This
> > applies both for avoiding the placement of the equivalent of signs
> > advertising lap dances on the right of St Peter's altar AND for not
> > positioning moral condemnations or call to repentance at the
> > entrance of entertainment sites;
> > 3) that in other cases, maybe the Davos - Porto Alegre example, the
Holodeck
> > effect placing together streams of information that are competing
views on
> > the same subject micht actually be beneficial to a better
understanding.;
> >
> > In any case, the whole discussion is, once again, about coexistence
> > of different cultural and value sets in a common environment. This
> > is a debate that has not taken place yet and will necessarily impose
> > itself. It deserves better than just talking past one another. Using
> > physical world analogies is useful : to understand how people feel
> > and to understand what is similar and what is different in the
> > virtual world as opposed to the physical one.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Bertrand
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/6/07, Demi Getschko <trieste at gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ____________________
> > Bertrand de La Chapelle
> > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for
> > the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French
> > Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
> >
> > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
> > Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting
> > humans")
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
>> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for HyperNetwork Society
Kumon Center, Tama University
* * * * *
<< Writing the Future of the History >>
www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
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
!DSPAM:2676,46165a2174229095819235!
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list