[governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> 
> 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. 

Vittorio, they already have broken out. Both are systematically blocking URLs, and they are doing so based on the _content_ of domains regardless of whether they are second level or top level or n-level. 

This is what I find difficult to understand about your position. Your arguments in favor of TLD regulation provide no basis for opposing the other censorship scenarios you discuss. In another message Michael Froomkin carefully dissected Kieren's view, which is the same as yours, and pointed out that any justification of content regulation based on "avoiding offense" leads directly to this result (blocking). Clearly, the Arab states and China govt feel "offended" by certain kinds of expression. 

The content - label issue is a distinction without a difference when it comes to the justification for censorship. The only important difference is that governments have a ready means of acting as gatekeepers for top-level labels, so we are likely to get censorship there, especially when people from civil society support it. They don't have such an efficient mechanism for controlling content. But if you provide them with the rationale and philosophy for engaging in censorship in the name or "world harmony" they will certainly take it, and it will gradually be extended into new areas. 

> I do not understand why, whenever you are confronted with different
> opinions, you have to prove in front of everyone that yours is right and
> the others are wrong. It would be more productive to recognize that we
> live in a diverse world and we have to find common grounds to make
> everyone feel at home on the Internet.

Vittorio, this is not a productive way to pursue an important debate. You have been arguing, with skill and tenacity, that the freedom I favor is wrong. I am just answering you. Let's have the debate on the merits and not complain that we are running into opposition from each other. 

I do not engage in discussions like this "whenever I am confronted with different opinions." If I tried, I would be writing emails to this list 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I select my targets carefully, and freedom of expression is one of the most important. I am especially adamant about it because if civil society doesn't consistently support freedom of expression who the heck will? Business won't care unless they are selling something restricted, and governments, as you yourself pointed out, are looking for excuses to intervene wherever they can. 




No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.36/1041 - Release Date: 10/1/2007 10:20 AM
 
____________________________________________________________
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