[governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

[Dan Krimm]

Just a few points of substance here:


At 12:13 PM +0200 9/30/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> ... And you still seem to miss the difference between
>identifiers and actual content

The whole issue with gTLDs is that these identifiers also contain
expressive characteristics.  And these expressive characteristics are
precisely what might come into play in rejections based on "morality" or
trademarks, etc.

In this case, the distinction between identification and expression is
hopelessly blurred, and the expressive-related policies could easily be
extended to other forms of expression.

This is a dangerous precedent to set in any venue of global authority.



>I would be arguing that for most parts of the world the result of a
>global Internet as we know it, even in a scenario where you'd not get
>info.abortion and you'd be forced to use abortion.info, is much more
>freedom than they ever knew before. Compare this with the scenario where
>you have info.abortion, but China and the Arab world break out of the
>international governance and root server systems. Which of the two is
>more likely to lead to a free and peaceful global society?

Why should we assume that a free global society is at all likely to be
"peaceful" in the foreseeable future?  If we have to choose between order
and freedom, I'll choose freedom, and we can work on the order over time.
If we choose order by constraining freedom, we may lose that freedom
indefinitely if not permanently.  To get to "free and peaceful" seems
rather far away right now.  I think it is more prudent to assume that
combination will be beyond reach for quite some more time.

If the price of keeping China et al. from breaking out of IG and the RSS is
to constrain freedoms elsewhere, I'm not sure this is an advantageous
tradeoff.  Especially because there is still no guarantee that they will
not break away anyway, and then we have lost both network integration *and*
freedom of expression.

Just where does one draw the line when one is appeasing authoritarian
powers?  My preference is to draw it at the very outset before one appeases
them at all.



 And do you
>really think that a free and peaceful global society should or even
>could be just an expanded replica of late 20th century Western
>societies?

Hardly, IMHO.  However, disposing of essential freedoms would be tantamount
to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  If the choice is between
heartless capitalism and centralized authoritarianism, then let me just
shoot myself right now, as neither is good enough to respect human beings
because they both create powerful governing elites that tend to oppress or
discard the bulk of society.  We're looking for a third way here.



 Shouldn't it rather be a meeting point among all different
>sets of values existing in the world, including the ones we don't like
>for ourselves?

That's what happens when you protect freedom of expression.  When you start
rejecting gTLDs based on expressive-related criteria, you are immediately
beginning to preclude some values (that some or many or even most may not
like) from being present in the discussion.

But beyond that, perhaps we need not force anyone into the same room with
everyone else.  If some parties do not want to hear certain expression,
then we may allow them to leave the room.  That would be preferable to
allowing them to confine expression among others in the room.

If some parties don't want a common meeting point that includes values that
they don't like for themselves, then as long as they have freedom of action
we cannot force them to hear everything.  And it is unacceptable to place
constraints on our own expression simply to get them to stay -- that simply
makes us like them, and that's no progress.  In fact, it's dangerous.

They are ready to walk away if it is not to their advantage.  If we insist
upon doing anything necessary to get them in the room together, they will
use their willingness to walk away to trash our freedoms inside the room.
Let them go, for now, if they must.

There is no solution to the "free and peaceful" mission that I can see on
any horizon.  If we are ever to find one, it will not be by giving up the
"free" at the outset.
____________________________________________________________
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