[governance] Where are we going?

[Raul Echeberria]

At 11:00 a.m. 09/04/2007, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >>> raul at lacnic.net 4/9/2007 6:37 AM >>>
> >What i say is that this issue is less important
> >than it seems. If we are talking about freedom of
> >expression, so, it is very important, but if we
> >are only talking about market regulation, so, the
> >imporance of this issue is different.
>
>We are talking about both, Raul. You cannot have free expression
>without an ability to freely utilize the means of media production.
>People who discuss free software or net neutrality, to shift the context
>somewhat, are talking about both commercial and noncommercial activity
>that is fostered by the open, neutral access to the resource in
>question.

Nobody express him/herself trhough a domain name.
If you want to access an adult conten website, 
you can do it (of course, with the limitations 
that everybody know, what is a real censorship 
problem). The existence of .xxx will not chnge 
anything in relation with your abiltiy to do it.
If you want to create or host an adult content 
website you can do it (of course, if it is legal 
in your country). The existence of .xxx will not 
change anything in relation with your abitlity to do it.

So, there is not a problem about freedom of 
expression. While you think that my view "is not 
clearly thought out" , I still think that nobody 
has demonstrated that freedom of expression os 
affected by this decision about .xxx.

We are talking about a different thing. So, let's 
focus correctly this discussion.

Personally, I think that there are some process 
in place for creating new TLDs. I understand thay 
you don't like those process, and I respect your 
view, but while those process are in place, what 
we can question is if the process are correctly used.

The specific case of .xxx is much more 
complicated and less important of what you try to 
show. Is not an issue between governments and the 
rest of the community, is not only a matter of 
lobbysm. There are a lot of people and 
organizations (not governmental) that think that 
this domain is not appropriated. So, the lack of 
a strong community support (as Carlos already has said) is obvious.

IMHO we are wasting time discussing this issue. 
ICANN Board has taken a decision that has 
significant support through different 
stakeholders in the Internet community. Clearly 
it is not either the best or the worst thing that 
ICANN has done. I am sure that there are other 
cases in which it is much more important to be 
meticulous regarding principles.

Raúl







>Governments who want to regulate and restrict expression inevitably do
>so via economic regulation as well as direct censorship, e.g. by limitng
>the number of ISPs in a market or by refusing to make radio spectrum
>resources available for civilian and commercial use. Your attempt to
>drive a wedge between the two is not clearly thought out.
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - 
>Release Date: 07/04/2007 10:57 p.m.


____________________________________________________________
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