I
agree with Wendy.
Make
no mistake about this, the opposition to the .xxx TLD is very much related to
the larger effort to regulate content. ICANN should not show favour in any way
to this campaign but stick to its core competence. Furthermore, my reflexive
libertarian streak respecting what I read or view has determined that I am
unalterably opposed to any attempt by ICANN to regulate content. For as a
consenting adult, it is simply none of anybody’s business what I deem
useful content for my own use, much less a ‘global multistakeholder’
organization!
I
am yet willing to concede that we have a duty of care to protect the young and
probably, the weak-minded. But not even these should be considered as ICANN’s
responsibility.
[Spanish Version]
Concuerdo
con Wendy.
No
haga error acerca de esto, la oposición al .xxx TLD es tanto relacionado al
esfuerzo más grande regular el contenido. ICANN no debe mostrar el favor en
ninguna manera a esta campaña pero al palo a su competencia
Soy
mas dispuesto a conceder que tenemos un deber
-----Original Message-----
From: lac-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:lac-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of At Large Advisory
Committee
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:40 AM
To: Vittorio Bertola
Cc: 'Interim ALAC'
Subject: Re: [LAC-ALS] [ALAC] .xxx
ICANN should not be in the business of evaluating strings,
period. It should publish technical criteria and minimally evaluate
whether a registry fulfills those.
Some trademark holders will argue against new TLDs, but then they'd
also argue against learning new languages, lest they have to
"police"
their marks in those too.
--Wendy
At 04:16 AM 1/30/2007, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>Just pushing the issue again - if we want to be heard on this, we
need
>to come up with a statement in a not too long timeframe, definitely
>before
>
>Specifically:
>
>Bret Fausett ha scritto:
> > On the money printing machine argument, this is an argument
in favor of no
> > new generic TLDs at all. I don't see it as unique to .XXX.
>
>No, the point is that if you had a TLD that is useful to someone
(as any
>other TLD that was created, basically), then defensive
registrations
>would be a price that we collectively have to pay to get more names
>available out there. But if the TLD is not wanted by its own
community
>(and it seems unlikely that adult webmasters are actually going to
move
>into it, just to be filtered out more easily), then what you're
left
>with is a TLD that more or less only contains defensive
registrations
>and pay-per-click sites, and that is a nonsense to me.
>
>OTOH, I think that defensive registrations are a silly method to
protect
>one's brand, as it doesn't scale, and moreover it helps create
scarcity
>of good names - so it's time that ICANN discourages it and ensures
that
>there are effective methods to act ex post, rather than being
concerned
>about how to help it.
>--
>vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu
<--------
--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law,
Fellow,
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________
LAC-ALS mailing list
LAC-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-als_atlarge-lists.icann.org