On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:50:47 +0200, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
I am in two minds about this, because I prefer Patrick's statement than NARALO's statement.
Olivier, You got me thinking again. I am alright with the first part of the NARALO statement. However, the sentence which invokes "free speech" is disturbing me. I am convinced that, in some societies, people honestly expect their government should protect them from what they consider inappropriate content. As an example, most European countries ban Nazi content, for obvious historical reasons. Yet, we do not consider that as censorship, but rather as a societal consensus. What bothers me is that some countries oppose the adoption of a a *global* resource like triple X to suit their *local* culture. The are basically trying to impose their values on the rest of the world. Nothing would prevent these countries which oppose a domain to pass legislation prohibiting triple X on their territory. I do not like or support that, but it least it would be their choice. So, at second thought, I do not support the NARALO statement. The free speech argument is not convincing and often seen as Northern Hemisphere imperialism. we should rather stick to the legal reasoning. There has been a decision by a panel which both parties agreed to comply to beforehand. Now ICANN has no other option than to comply to the decision.
I realise the huge risks that ICANN might be subjected to if it got sued. What upsets me more about the subject is that ICANN would be at risk. That's a systemic issue, an Achilles' heel which I find untenable and which I hope we can address in the long term.
whatever the decision, ICANN will get sued anyway :-( Patrick