Alice! Pretty powerful "impose all intolerances cumulatively on everyone". My response would be like:-) "ICANN board asserted that capitalism too has limits" or "end-users carry the day forcing the internet's highest technical authority to listen to their majority (*read* democratic) voices", or something like that.<br><br>The internet tolerates this content and googling "porn filter" shows opposite efforts proving democratic space does exist and there is already a big enough problem getting filtering it off the .coms among other others which *were not to disappear* if it was approved anyway (incidentally these were threatened by proposed .xxx)<br><br>What I am opposed to is the .xxx status elevation, without an openly identifiable supporting community of users besides the porn industry, who already have their own freedom and space. <br><br>Also, approving .xxx would have meant everyone is told of existence of .xxx before connection-->back-door free marketing of
this domain all over the world? <br><br>To the balance of 5 out of 6 billion global population unconnected, internet risks being synonymous to porn which would deter internet uptake among connectivity deprived global population, hampering various many other productive uses of the internet. <br><br>However, I understand opinions expressed, such as, from "Dot-XXX Decision Exposes Cracks in Net Governance System" <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1260/135/> but clearly Americans libraries users have the same similar problems with is domain <http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/06/59359><br><br>But if anyone pointed me to just one country where a democratic majority of internet users support this domain, then perhaps I may reconsider my position.<br><br>/Alex<br><br><b><i>alice <alice@apc.org></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> Alex, am afraid then
this would be an attempt to "impose all <br>intolerances cumulatively on everyone" ICANN's criteria for <br>consideration of TLD selection will constantly pit one culture against <br>another and in a way this invites the view that creation of TLD's is <br>based on a set of ideas rather than coordination of unique strings.<br><br>I am afraid this is the beginning of suppression of diversity and <br>expression. ICANN should have approved and let public policy at the <br>national level negotiate and regulate according to their norms<br><br><br><br><br>Alex Gakuru wrote:<br>> Alice,<br>><br>> Sorry I defer slightly on this, "In cases of conflict, public interest <br>> is supreme", whether regarding internet, broadcasting, print, <br>> advertising and all other media. To me, the same goes with ICANN.<br>><br>> Maybe ICANN decision processes are the problem, it is the issue at hand,<br>> but where would it be the highest best place to establish a
precedent? <br>> ICANN.<br>><br>> I fear we could be ventilating to ICANN while this remains a test on <br>> right<br>> or wrong with ICANN in focus this time around?<br>><br>> Next time will it not be, if it not always been, regulators over this <br>> content<br>> on TV, radio channels, print media, advertisements not internet domain<br>> names policy.<br>><br>> Principally, would endorsing this domain generate more "eager want"<br>> essentially translating to advertising and popularising as now "ICANN<br>> globally acceptable norms"? And In the process wooing vulnerable,<br>> info-challenged (such as our rural 30 millions currrently unconnected)<br>> and innocent kids who will end up trapped?<br>><br>> .xxx is bad for Kenya's economy. Global annual profits from trafficked <br>> forced labour is $32 billion (Sh2.4 trillion) with the Middle East, <br>> North and sub-Saharan Africa generating $1.75 billion (Sh131
billion).<br>><br>> To grasp the impact and our international perception, relate this with <br>> global human trafficking which Kenya, unfortunately, has not had a <br>> very good record. Although things have changed with media reports of <br>> many coastal raids, in<br>> 2004 were ranked on "Tier 2 watchlist" in this document <br>> <http: www.state.gov="" documents="" organization="" 34158.pdf=""><br>> �Kenya is a country of origin, destination, and transit for victims <br>> trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. <br>> Victims are trafficked from South Asian and East Asian countries and <br>> the Middle East through Kenya to European destinations for sexual <br>> exploitation.<br>> Asian nationals, principally Indians, Bangladeshi, and Nepalese, are <br>> trafficked into Kenya and coerced into bonded labor in the <br>> construction and garment industries. Kenyan children are trafficked <br>>
internally from rural areas to urban centers and coastal areas into <br>> involuntary servitude, including work as street vendors and day <br>> laborers, and into prostitution. Women and children are trafficked <br>> from Burundi and Rwanda to coastal areas in Kenya for sexual <br>> exploitation in the growing sex tourism industry.�<br>> So what's the big deal .xxx? That stuff is plenty already out there <br>> will not<br>> automagically disappear from current domains, if .xxx was agreed to,<br>> maybe it would have even become more expensive to target users<br>> anyway because domain name sponsors would expect a royalty fee?<br>><br>> Needless to say this would also make it more lucrative for content filter<br>> programs makers.<br>><br>> Curiosity killed the cat. More interest would be created to access among<br>> kids told never to go to these domains- (like in the Adam and Eve story).<br>><br>> Who will be next after
ICANN, advocates may ask for legit billboards,<br>> specialised broadcasts channels and because they claim will be<br>> responsible, they will ask all radio and TV owners to buy special<br>> channels filters, as new channels get "licensed"? Filters would be<br>> a very big additional cost to many users around the world. Content<br>> filters selling programs is already quite lucrative business.<br>><br>> /Alex<br>><br>> */alice <alice@apc.org>/* wrote:<br>><br>><br>> Agree with you Njeri that ICANN's core mandate is technical<br>> regulation<br>> of the internet, however, the moment it made a decision on the dot<br>> XXX,<br>> a matter in my opinion that is ideologically loaded, it is moving<br>> out of<br>> technical regulation into the public policy sphere.<br>><br>><br>> Reason why numerous countries, and the EU for example, raised<br>> issues of<br>> public
policy principles for management of internet resources<br>> during the<br>> WSIS Tunis agenda.<br>><br>><br>> As others have observed, the decision is indeed a symptom of<br>> international policy malaise on developing globally acceptable<br>> rules for<br>> governing the internet in the interest of the public and these<br>> contradictions are likely to recur.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> Njeri Rionge wrote:<br>> ><br>> > Rebecca, I personally prefer to remain succinct.<br>> ><br>> > In addition to the reasons stated in the resolution, I vote no<br>> for the<br>> > following reasons.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > 1. that the ICM proposal does not take into account the<br>> > global cultural issues and concerns that relate to the<br>> > immediate introduction of this TLD onto the
internet,<br>> > 2. that the ICM proposal will not protect the relevant or<br>> > interested community from the adult entertainment<br>> > websites by a significant percentage<br>> > 3. that the ICM proposal focuses on content management<br>> > which is not in ICANN�s technical mandate<br>> > 4. the ICM proposal conflicts with our recently consistent<br>> > rebattle with ITU during the WSIS, which is still very<br>> > fresh in our minds and the community, we need to be<br>> > consistent with core mandate of ICANN<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > In reference to the resolution, this can be accessed:-<br>> > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-30mar07.htm<br>> ><br>> > Be reminded that the vote was 9 against and 5 for, and 1<br>> abstention.<br>> > If you look at the trend from inception, this matter has
even<br>> received<br>> > a for vote initially and therefore cannot be sighted my this<br>> fact that<br>> > the vote was based on morality and personal believes. This has<br>> been a<br>> > complex issue and will continue to be until we resolve some<br>> > fundamental principles of structure and redefined objectives of the<br>> > institution/corporation as a whole.<br>> ><br>> > Ps, this information was posted on the internet as well.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Njeri,<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > On 4/5/07 9:09 AM, "Rebecca Wanjiku" wrote:<br>> ><br>> > i thought we should expect reasons/explanations like this from<br>> > ICANN representatives on the board,<br>> > just a thought,<br>> > read on<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > *Why I Voted for .XXX<br>> >
*<br>> > By *Susan Crawford*<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > *The ICANN Board voted today 9-5, with Paul Twomey abstaining, to<br>> > reject a proposal to open .xxx. This is my statement in connection<br>> > with that vote. I found the resolution adopted by the Board<br>> > (rejecting xxx) both weak and unprincipled.<br>> > *<br>> > I am troubled by the path the Board has followed on this issue<br>> > since I joined the Board in December of 2005. I would like to make<br>> > two points. First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it<br>> > acts in an ad hoc fashion in response to political pressures.<br>> > Second, ICANN should take itself seriously as a private governance<br>> > institution with a limited mandate and should resist efforts by<br>> > governments to veto what it does.<br>> ><br>>
> *Role of the Board<br>> > *<br>> > This decision, whether to admit a particular non-confusing, legal<br>> > string into the root, is put before the ICANN Board because (1) we<br>> > purport to speak on behalf of the global internet community and<br>> > (2) the U.S. Department of Commerce defers to the judgments of<br>> > that community when deciding what to tell its contractor to add to<br>> > the authoritative root zone file.<br>> ><br>> > As a Board, we cannot speak as *elected* representatives of the<br>> > global internet community because we have not allowed elections<br>> > for Board members. This application does not present any difficult<br>> > technical questions, and even if it did we do not as a group claim<br>> > to have special technical expertise. So this is not a technical<br>> > stability and security question. It
seems to me that the only<br>> > plausible basis on which the Board can answer the question in the<br>> > negative ("a group of people may *not* operate and use a lawful<br>> > string of letters as a top level domain") is to say that the<br>> > people affected by this decision have a broadly shared agreement<br>> > that the admission of this string to the root would amount to<br>> > unjustifiable wrongdoing. Otherwise, in the absence of technical<br>> > considerations, the Board has no basis for rejecting this<br>> application.<br>> ><br>> > Let me explain. The most fundamental value of the global internet<br>> > community is that people who propose to use the internet protocols<br>> > and infrastructures for otherwise lawful purposes, without<br>> > threatening the operational stability or security of the internet,<br>> > should be
presumed to be entitled to do so. In a nutshell,<br>> > �everything not prohibited is permitted.� This understanding, this<br>> > value, has led directly to the striking success of the internet<br>> > around the world.<br>> ><br>> > ICANN�s role in gTLD policy development is to seek to assess and<br>> > articulate the broadly shared values of the internet community. We<br>> > have very limited authority and we can only speak on behalf of<br>> > that community. I am personally not aware that any global<br>> > consensus against the creation of an .xxx domain exists. In the<br>> > absence of such a prohibition, and given our mandate to create TLD<br>> > competition, we have no authority to block the addition of this<br>> > TLD to the root.<br>> ><br>> > It is very clear that we do not have a global shared set of values<br>>
> about content online, save for the global norm against child<br>> > pornography. But the global internet community clearly *does*<br>> > share the core value that no centralized authority should set<br>> > itself up as the arbiter of what people may do together online,<br>> > absent a demonstration that most of those affected by the proposed<br>> > activity agree that it should be banned.<br>> ><br>> > *Process<br>> > *<br>> > More than three years ago, before I joined the Board, ICANN began<br>> > a process for new sponsored top level domains. As I have said on<br>> > many occasions, I think the idea of �sponsorship� is an empty one.<br>> > *All* generic TLDs should be considered �sponsored� in that they<br>> > should be able to create policies for themselves that are not<br>> > dictated by ICANN. The only exceptions to
this freedom for every<br>> > TLD should be, of course, the (very few) global consensus policies<br>> > that are created through the ICANN forum. This freedom is shared<br>> > by the country code TLDs.<br>> ><br>> > Notwithstanding my personal views on the vacuity of the<br>> > �sponsorship� idea, the fact is that ICANN evaluated the strength<br>> > of the sponsorship of xxx (the relationship between the applicant<br>> > and the �community� behind the TLD) and, in my view, concluded<br>> > that this criteria had been met as of June 2005; ICANN then went<br>> > on to negotiate specific contractual terms with the applicant.<br>> ><br>> > Since then, real and �astroturf� comments (filed comments claiming<br>> > to be grassroots opposition that have actually been generated by<br>> > organized campaigns) have come in to ICANN
that reflect opposition<br>> > to this application. I do not find these recent comments<br>> > sufficient to warrant re-visiting the question of the<br>> > �sponsorship� strength of this TLD which I personally believe to<br>> > be closed.<br>> ><br>> > No applicant for any �sponsored� TLD could ever demonstrate<br>> > unanimous, cheering approval for its application. We have no<br>> > metric against which to measure this opposition, and thus we have<br>> > no idea how significant it is. We should not be in the business of<br>> > judging the level of market or community support for a new TLD<br>> > before the fact. We will only get in the way of useful innovation<br>> > if we take the view that every new TLD must prove itself to us<br>> > before it can be added to the root.<br>> ><br>> > It seems to me that what is
meant by �sponsorship� (a notion that<br>> > I hope we abandon) is to show that there is enough interest in a<br>> > particular TLD that it will be viable. We also have the idea that<br>> > registrants should participate in (and be bound by) the creation<br>> > of policies for a particular string. Both of these requirements<br>> > have been met by this applicant. There is clearly enough interest<br>> > (including more than 70,000 pre-registrations from 1,000 or more<br>> > unique registrants who are members of the adult industry), and the<br>> > applicant has undertaken to us that it will require adherence to<br>> > its self-regulatory policies by all of its registrants. To the<br>> > extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN<br>> > should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD<br>> > makes a valuable contribution
to the namespace, I differ with<br>> > them. I do not think ICANN is capable of making such a<br>> > determination. Indeed, this argument is very much like those made<br>> > by the pre-divestiture AT&T when it claimed that no �foreign<br>> > attachments� to its network (like answering machines) should be<br>> > allowed, in part because AT&T asserted there was no public demand<br>> > for them. The rise of the internet was arguably made possible by<br>> > allowing many �foreign attachments� to the network - called modems.<br>> ><br>> > We established a process for sTLDs some time ago. We have taken<br>> > this applicant through this process. We now appear to be changing<br>> > the process. We should not act in this fashion.<br>> ><br>> > *Politics<br>> > *<br>> > Discomfort with this application may have been
sparked anew by (1)<br>> > the letter from individual GAC members Janis Karklins and Sharil<br>> > Tarmizi (to which Amb. Karklins has told us the GAC acceded as a<br>> > whole by its silence), and (2) the letter from the Australian<br>> > government.<br>> ><br>> > I am not at all opposed to receiving advice from the Government<br>> > Advisory Committee. But the entire point of ICANN�s creation was<br>> > to avoid the operation of chokepoint content control over the<br>> > domain name system by individual or collective governments. The<br>> > idea was that the US would serve as a good steward for other<br>> > governmental concerns by staying in the background and overseeing<br>> > ICANN�s activities, but not engaging in content-related control.<br>> > Australia�s letter, and concerns expressed in the past by Brazil<br>> > and
other countries about xxx, are explicitly content-based and<br>> > thus inappropriate, in my view.<br>> ><br>> > If, after creation of an xxx TLD, certain governments of the world<br>> > want to ensure that their citizens do not see xxx content, it is<br>> > within their prerogative as sovereigns to instruct internet access<br>> > providers physically located within their territory to block such<br>> > content. Also, if certain governments want to ensure that *all*<br>> > adult content providers with a physical presence in their country<br>> > register exclusively within xxx, that is their prerogative as<br>> > well. (I note that such a requirement in the U.S. would violate<br>> > the First Amendment to our Constitution.) But this content-related<br>> > censorship should not be ICANN�s concern, and ICANN should not<br>> > allow itself to be
used as a private lever for government<br>> > chokepoint content control by making up reasons to avoid the<br>> > creation of such a TLD in the first place. To the extent there are<br>> > public policy concerns with this TLD, they can be dealt with<br>> > through local law. Registration in (or visitation of) domains in<br>> > this TLD is purely voluntary.<br>> ><br>> > If ICANN were to base its decisions on the views of the Australian<br>> > (or US, or Brazilian) government, ICANN would have compromised<br>> > away its very reason for existence as a private non-governmental<br>> > governance institution.<br>> ><br>> > *Conclusion<br>> > *<br>> > I continue to be dissatisfied with elements of the proposed xxx<br>> > contract, including but not limited to the �rapid takedown�<br>> > provision of Appendix S,1 which
is manifestly designed to placate<br>> > trademark owners and ignores the many due process concerns that<br>> > have been expressed about the existing UDRP. I am confident that<br>> > if I had a staff or enough time I could find many things to carp<br>> > about in this draft contract. But I am certain that if I<br>> > complained about these terms my concerns would be used to justify<br>> > derailing this application for political reasons. I plan,<br>> > therefore, to turn my attention to the new gTLD process that was<br>> > promised for January 2007 (a promise that has not been kept) in<br>> > hopes that we will someday have a standard contract and objective<br>> > process that can help ICANN avoid engaging in unjustifiable ad hoc<br>> > actions. We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the<br>> > basis of their technical and financial strength,
and we should<br>> > avoid dealing with �content� concerns to the maximum extent<br>> > possible. We should be opening up new TLDs. I hope we will find a<br>> > way to achieve such a sound process in short order.<br>> > Rebecca Wanjiku,<br>> > journalist,<br>> > p.o box 33515,<br>> > Nairobi.00600<br>> > Kenya.<br>> ><br>> > Tel. 254 720 318 925<br>> ><br>> > blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> > Finding fabulous fares is fun.<br>> > Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites<br>> ><br>> > to find flight and hotel bargains.<br>> ><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> >
_______________________________________________<br>> > kictanet mailing list<br>> > kictanet@kictanet.or.ke<br>> > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet<br>> ><br>> > Please unsubscribe or change your options at<br>> ><br>> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/njeri.rionge%40igniteconsulting.co.ke<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > ===================================================<br>> > Njeri Rionge<br>> > Chief Executive Officer<br>> > Ignite Consulting Limited<br>> > Eden Square 7th Floor<br>> > Chiromo Rd, Westlands<br>> > P. O. Box 15568 00100 GPO Nairobi, Kenya<br>> > T: (254 20) 3673250�9<br>> > E: _njeri.rionge@igniteconsulting.co.ke<br>> > http://www.igniteconsulting.co.ke<br>> > _<br>> > /Professional, Life Skills Coaching, Value
Added Training on<br>> > Conformity and Compliance,<br>> > Business Management, Organizational Development and Facilitation.<br>> > /<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > kictanet mailing list<br>> > kictanet@kictanet.or.ke<br>> > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet<br>> ><br>> > Please unsubscribe or change your options at<br>> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org<br>><br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> kictanet mailing list<br>> kictanet@kictanet.or.ke<br>> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet<br>><br>> Please unsubscribe or change your
options at<br>> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com<br><br>=== message truncated ===</alice@apc.org></http:></blockquote><br><p>
<hr size=1>We won't tell. Get more on <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
">shows you hate to love</a><br>(and love to hate): <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
">Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.</a>