[governance] Where are we going?

[George Sadowsky]

Lee,

I'd agree to the following: some future version of ICANN, with the 
increased involvement of the governmental stakeholders, i.e. the 
Future GAC, should do regulation of top level domain names using the 
semantic content of the names as one of the important criteria.

However,  I would not want ICANN, and certainly not the present 
version of ICANN, to be involved in content regulation beyond that.

George




  At 11:28 PM -0400 4/6/07, Lee McKnight wrote:
>George,
>
>So we agree, ICANN and the GAC do global content regulation, or
>semantics label regulation if you prefer.
>
>And we also agree that ICANN/GAC needs more transparent and objective
>procedures to follow while it goes about its regulatory business,
>whether it justifies specificx decisions on technical or other
>groiunds.
>
>Lee
>
>Prof. Lee W. McKnight
>School of Information Studies
>Syracuse University
>+1-315-443-6891office
>+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
>>>>  george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 4/6/2007 12:07 PM >>>
>Back to the future (after many interventions that came while I was
>asleep) .
>
>The .xxx debacle is a symptom of a real problem that will continue to
>assert itself.  Now forget about the details of .xxx and go back to
>Karl's original question - what do we want in the future?
>
>
>At 6:02 PM -0400 4/5/07, Milton Mueller wrote:
>>   >>> George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> 4/5/2007 3:08
>PM
>>>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>No. It is precisely the multicultural, diverse nature of the world
>that
>>animates my desire to prevent ICANN from becoming a chokepoint. Such
>a
>>chokepoint, as Robin eloquently put it, becomes a way of "imposing
>all
>>intolerances cumulatively on everyone."
>>
>>Try to understand that, please.
>
>
>I understand the reasoning, but I differ regarding the remedy.
>Omitting the extreme positions, which Bertrand has aptly described,
>in a multicultural environment there will be disputes over specific
>sensitive labels, whether having to do with sex, religion, the king,
>or whatever.  I think that ultimately some organization is going to
>inject itself into the label-semantics business (which is quite
>different from the actual content business), and I would rather see
>it be a revision of, say, the current GAC structure than the UN
>General Assembly, or the ITU, or UNESCO, or some other body.   The
>danger is that the external body, once being given or taking a
>mandate to get into judging top-level names, will be tempted to get
>into judging content also.
>
>I think it is not realistic that the growth of the TLD name space can
>avoid this.  If I am right, let's plan for a transition that is
>broadly and globallly acceptable, and that retains maximum freedom
>and autonomy for the Internet's degrees of freedom and the rest of
>ICANN's functionality, rather than risking their erosion by
>stubbornly adhering to a principle with respect to top level label
>semantics.
>
>>
>>
>>The TLD selection criteria being considered by ICANN will constantly
>>pit one culture against another. It invites people to view TLD
>creation
>>as a conferral of global approval and legitimacy on one set of ideas
>>rather than as coordination of unique strings, the meaning of which
>>different nations and cultures can negotiate and regulate according
>to
>>their own norms.
>>
>>>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
>>
>>I understand this argument. Vittorio was making the same point.
>>There is something to be said for it, as a guide to _personal_
>conduct.
>>But translated into institutionalized rules, it is a recipe for
>>systematic suppression of diversity and dissent. If you are prevented
>by
>>law from saying something that offends anyone, then your expression
>is
>>seriously restricted. Global policy making processes for resource
>>assignment are not the greatest way to enforce "decency and respect
>for
>>sensitivities." Of course that does not mean I advocate going out of
>my
>>way to offend people, just because it is legal to do it. And yes,
>there
>>are jerks who will do that. But I think the problems posed by a few
>>insensitive jerks is much smaller than putting into place a global
>>machinery that encourages organized groups to object to and challenge
>>the non-violent expressions of others.
>
>Insensitive jerks have a way of magnifying the destructive power of
>their insensitivity.  Small wars have been started by insensitive
>jerks.  Closer to home, Brett Fawcett reports that the GAC has just
>closed its public discussion forum because of obscenities posted to
>it by some insensitive jerks.  We have  huge decency and sensitivity
>deficits in many walks of life, including in the Internet community,
>and we are paying for it.  Let's not adopt policies which threaten to
>increase these deficits.
>
>>
>>Anyway, I think we are finally getting to the core of the
>disagreement.
>>The .xxx rejection was not fundamentally about its so-called lack of
>>community support, or about concerns that it would lead ICANN into
>>contractual content regulation. It was about this.
>
>According to the Board members  who commented, assuming that they are
>telling the truth that's not correct.  They argued that the content,
>and the label, did not influence their decision.   (If I were on the
>Board, I would have thought differently.)  I think that the community
>support issue was a real one, but to be fair it did not appear to be
>the subject of much study by anyone, just claims in both directions.
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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