Re: [NA-Discuss] Comments on proposed .XXX agreement
It seems to me, with the views stated below, that having a XXX TLD would be a good thing, then. If things play out as below, it would make content blocking by parental control software that much more effective. Nothing is perfect, of course, but it might improve things somewhat. Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 429 Pond Inlet, NU X0A 0S0 Phone: (867) 899-7363 Fax: (867) 899-7334 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 2:04 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Comments on proposed .XXX agreement On 1/18/07 9:59 AM, "Robert Guerra" <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
From a process standpoint - it should be approved. However, given the nature and subject matter it deals with - rights protections related to freedom of expression, exploitation, among others must be included. Compliance with existing international treaties and protocols needs to be included included in any agreement. As vulnerable groups will be affected by this decision - Protections and complaints processes need to be in place before introduction into the root zone can take place.
My view is somewhat similar to yours, Robert, but I see the policy overlay and enforcement coming after .XXX is entered into the root zone and is accepting registrations. Within a year after its introduction, I am fairly certain you will see legislation in the United States requiring that content deemed offensive to minors be served only from host computers addressed by .XXX domains. Back in 1990s, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the infamous "Communications Decency Act," but in a concurring opinion Justice O'Connor opined that a future law which zoned offensive content into a specific place (i.e.,.XXX) might be acceptable. After the U.S. passes such a law, other countries will do the same. Then the countries that have such laws will try to convince other countries to adopt such laws, and we'll see treaties, trade agreements and other international mechanisms for getting everyone on the same page. (Sort of like the way we've seen the U.S. and Europe pressure other IP rights.) But I don't think you can do this before you have the TLD, especially not within ICANN fora, or else it will never get done. Bret _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org
I feel strongly that use of .xxx to segregate content would be bad for free expression, especially if it were government-mandated, but I still think that's not ICANN's decision. ICANN's decision should be merely the mechanical "does this TLD meet our previously announced technical specifications?", which I believe .xxx does. --Wendy Thompson, Darlene wrote:
It seems to me, with the views stated below, that having a XXX TLD would be a good thing, then. If things play out as below, it would make content blocking by parental control software that much more effective. Nothing is perfect, of course, but it might improve things somewhat.
Darlene
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 429 Pond Inlet, NU X0A 0S0 Phone: (867) 899-7363 Fax: (867) 899-7334 dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 2:04 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Comments on proposed .XXX agreement
On 1/18/07 9:59 AM, "Robert Guerra" <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
From a process standpoint - it should be approved. However, given the nature and subject matter it deals with - rights protections related to freedom of expression, exploitation, among others must be included. Compliance with existing international treaties and protocols needs to be included included in any agreement. As vulnerable groups will be affected by this decision - Protections and complaints processes need to be in place before introduction into the root zone can take place.
My view is somewhat similar to yours, Robert, but I see the policy overlay and enforcement coming after .XXX is entered into the root zone and is accepting registrations. Within a year after its introduction, I am fairly certain you will see legislation in the United States requiring that content deemed offensive to minors be served only from host computers addressed by .XXX domains. Back in 1990s, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the infamous "Communications Decency Act," but in a concurring opinion Justice O'Connor opined that a future law which zoned offensive content into a specific place (i.e.,.XXX) might be acceptable.
After the U.S. passes such a law, other countries will do the same. Then the countries that have such laws will try to convince other countries to adopt such laws, and we'll see treaties, trade agreements and other international mechanisms for getting everyone on the same page. (Sort of like the way we've seen the U.S. and Europe pressure other IP rights.) But I don't think you can do this before you have the TLD, especially not within ICANN fora, or else it will never get done.
Bret
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
It seems to me, with the views stated below, that having a XXX TLD would be a good thing, then. If things play out as below, it would make content blocking by parental control software that much more effective. Nothing is perfect, of course, but it might improve things somewhat.
The problem is defining what is "offensive". At one end, there's pretty broad agreement that titillating pictures of explicit sexual activity would go into .XXX, but at the other end, there's no agreement at all. Some web sites offer health advice to teens, some of which is related to sexuality. There's sites about breast, cervical, and prostate cancer, which tend to have illustrations of the affected body parts. There's sites about contraception, abortion, and homosexuality. There's sites with pictures of scantily clad 17 year olds which are considered to be art in some jurisdictions, and child pornography in others. Which of those belong in .XXX ? Who decides? I haven't the faintest idea, and I sure hope that ICANN doesn't either. So like Wendy, I don't think that .XXX is a very good idea, but I think that ICANN trying to explain why it isn't would be worse. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
ICANN already approved the addition of .XXX, the question now is : what about the contract. The Internet Governance Project weighs in on what it sees as the important bits http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/new-xxx-contract.pdf -- Jean Armour Polly http://www.netmom.com/
participants (4)
-
Jean Armour Polly -
John L -
Thompson, Darlene -
Wendy Seltzer