why i voted fo .xxx- by susan crawford
i thought we should expect reasons/explanations like this from ICANN representatives on the board, just a thought, read on Why I Voted for .XXX By Susan Crawford The ICANN Board voted today 9-5, with Paul Twomey abstaining, to reject a proposal to open .xxx. This is my statement in connection with that vote. I found the resolution adopted by the Board (rejecting xxx) both weak and unprincipled. I am troubled by the path the Board has followed on this issue since I joined the Board in December of 2005. I would like to make two points. First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it acts in an ad hoc fashion in response to political pressures. Second, ICANN should take itself seriously as a private governance institution with a limited mandate and should resist efforts by governments to veto what it does. Role of the Board This decision, whether to admit a particular non-confusing, legal string into the root, is put before the ICANN Board because (1) we purport to speak on behalf of the global internet community and (2) the U.S. Department of Commerce defers to the judgments of that community when deciding what to tell its contractor to add to the authoritative root zone file. As a Board, we cannot speak as *elected* representatives of the global internet community because we have not allowed elections for Board members. This application does not present any difficult technical questions, and even if it did we do not as a group claim to have special technical expertise. So this is not a technical stability and security question. It seems to me that the only plausible basis on which the Board can answer the question in the negative ("a group of people may *not* operate and use a lawful string of letters as a top level domain") is to say that the people affected by this decision have a broadly shared agreement that the admission of this string to the root would amount to unjustifiable wrongdoing. Otherwise, in the absence of technical considerations, the Board has no basis for rejecting this application. Let me explain. The most fundamental value of the global internet community is that people who propose to use the internet protocols and infrastructures for otherwise lawful purposes, without threatening the operational stability or security of the internet, should be presumed to be entitled to do so. In a nutshell, “everything not prohibited is permitted.” This understanding, this value, has led directly to the striking success of the internet around the world. ICANN’s role in gTLD policy development is to seek to assess and articulate the broadly shared values of the internet community. We have very limited authority and we can only speak on behalf of that community. I am personally not aware that any global consensus against the creation of an .xxx domain exists. In the absence of such a prohibition, and given our mandate to create TLD competition, we have no authority to block the addition of this TLD to the root. It is very clear that we do not have a global shared set of values about content online, save for the global norm against child pornography. But the global internet community clearly *does* share the core value that no centralized authority should set itself up as the arbiter of what people may do together online, absent a demonstration that most of those affected by the proposed activity agree that it should be banned. Process More than three years ago, before I joined the Board, ICANN began a process for new sponsored top level domains. As I have said on many occasions, I think the idea of “sponsorship” is an empty one. *All* generic TLDs should be considered “sponsored” in that they should be able to create policies for themselves that are not dictated by ICANN. The only exceptions to this freedom for every TLD should be, of course, the (very few) global consensus policies that are created through the ICANN forum. This freedom is shared by the country code TLDs. Notwithstanding my personal views on the vacuity of the “sponsorship” idea, the fact is that ICANN evaluated the strength of the sponsorship of xxx (the relationship between the applicant and the “community” behind the TLD) and, in my view, concluded that this criteria had been met as of June 2005; ICANN then went on to negotiate specific contractual terms with the applicant. Since then, real and “astroturf” comments (filed comments claiming to be grassroots opposition that have actually been generated by organized campaigns) have come in to ICANN that reflect opposition to this application. I do not find these recent comments sufficient to warrant re-visiting the question of the “sponsorship” strength of this TLD which I personally believe to be closed. No applicant for any “sponsored” TLD could ever demonstrate unanimous, cheering approval for its application. We have no metric against which to measure this opposition, and thus we have no idea how significant it is. We should not be in the business of judging the level of market or community support for a new TLD before the fact. We will only get in the way of useful innovation if we take the view that every new TLD must prove itself to us before it can be added to the root. It seems to me that what is meant by “sponsorship” (a notion that I hope we abandon) is to show that there is enough interest in a particular TLD that it will be viable. We also have the idea that registrants should participate in (and be bound by) the creation of policies for a particular string. Both of these requirements have been met by this applicant. There is clearly enough interest (including more than 70,000 pre-registrations from 1,000 or more unique registrants who are members of the adult industry), and the applicant has undertaken to us that it will require adherence to its self-regulatory policies by all of its registrants. To the extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD makes a valuable contribution to the namespace, I differ with them. I do not think ICANN is capable of making such a determination. Indeed, this argument is very much like those made by the pre-divestiture AT&T when it claimed that no “foreign attachments” to its network (like answering machines) should be allowed, in part because AT&T asserted there was no public demand for them. The rise of the internet was arguably made possible by allowing many “foreign attachments” to the network - called modems. We established a process for sTLDs some time ago. We have taken this applicant through this process. We now appear to be changing the process. We should not act in this fashion. Politics Discomfort with this application may have been sparked anew by (1) the letter from individual GAC members Janis Karklins and Sharil Tarmizi (to which Amb. Karklins has told us the GAC acceded as a whole by its silence), and (2) the letter from the Australian government. I am not at all opposed to receiving advice from the Government Advisory Committee. But the entire point of ICANN’s creation was to avoid the operation of chokepoint content control over the domain name system by individual or collective governments. The idea was that the US would serve as a good steward for other governmental concerns by staying in the background and overseeing ICANN’s activities, but not engaging in content-related control. Australia’s letter, and concerns expressed in the past by Brazil and other countries about xxx, are explicitly content-based and thus inappropriate, in my view. If, after creation of an xxx TLD, certain governments of the world want to ensure that their citizens do not see xxx content, it is within their prerogative as sovereigns to instruct internet access providers physically located within their territory to block such content. Also, if certain governments want to ensure that *all* adult content providers with a physical presence in their country register exclusively within xxx, that is their prerogative as well. (I note that such a requirement in the U.S. would violate the First Amendment to our Constitution.) But this content-related censorship should not be ICANN’s concern, and ICANN should not allow itself to be used as a private lever for government chokepoint content control by making up reasons to avoid the creation of such a TLD in the first place. To the extent there are public policy concerns with this TLD, they can be dealt with through local law. Registration in (or visitation of) domains in this TLD is purely voluntary. If ICANN were to base its decisions on the views of the Australian (or US, or Brazilian) government, ICANN would have compromised away its very reason for existence as a private non-governmental governance institution. Conclusion I continue to be dissatisfied with elements of the proposed xxx contract, including but not limited to the “rapid takedown” provision of Appendix S,1 which is manifestly designed to placate trademark owners and ignores the many due process concerns that have been expressed about the existing UDRP. I am confident that if I had a staff or enough time I could find many things to carp about in this draft contract. But I am certain that if I complained about these terms my concerns would be used to justify derailing this application for political reasons. I plan, therefore, to turn my attention to the new gTLD process that was promised for January 2007 (a promise that has not been kept) in hopes that we will someday have a standard contract and objective process that can help ICANN avoid engaging in unjustifiable ad hoc actions. We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the basis of their technical and financial strength, and we should avoid dealing with “content” concerns to the maximum extent possible. We should be opening up new TLDs. I hope we will find a way to achieve such a sound process in short order. Rebecca Wanjiku, journalist, p.o box 33515, Nairobi.00600 Kenya. Tel. 254 720 318 925 blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Rebecca, I personally prefer to remain succinct. In addition to the reasons stated in the resolution, I vote no for the following reasons.
1. that the ICM proposal does not take into account the global cultural issues and concerns that relate to the immediate introduction of this TLD onto the internet, 2. that the ICM proposal will not protect the relevant or interested community from the adult entertainment websites by a significant percentage 3. that the ICM proposal focuses on content management which is not in ICANN¹s technical mandate 4. the ICM proposal conflicts with our recently consistent rebattle with ITU during the WSIS, which is still very fresh in our minds and the community, we need to be consistent with core mandate of ICANN
In reference to the resolution, this can be accessed:- http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-30mar07.htm Be reminded that the vote was 9 against and 5 for, and 1 abstention. If you look at the trend from inception, this matter has even received a for vote initially and therefore cannot be sighted my this fact that the vote was based on morality and personal believes. This has been a complex issue and will continue to be until we resolve some fundamental principles of structure and redefined objectives of the institution/corporation as a whole. Ps, this information was posted on the internet as well. Njeri, On 4/5/07 9:09 AM, "Rebecca Wanjiku" <[email protected]> wrote:
i thought we should expect reasons/explanations like this from ICANN representatives on the board, just a thought, read on
Why I Voted for .XXX
By Susan Crawford <http://www.circleid.com/member/home/738/> <http://www.circleid.com/posts/why_i_voted_for_xxx/#comments> <http://www.circleid.com/member/tellafriend/1625/>
The ICANN Board voted today 9-5, with Paul Twomey abstaining, to reject a proposal to open .xxx. This is my statement in connection with that vote. I found the resolution adopted by the Board (rejecting xxx) both weak and unprincipled.
I am troubled by the path the Board has followed on this issue since I joined the Board in December of 2005. I would like to make two points. First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it acts in an ad hoc fashion in response to political pressures. Second, ICANN should take itself seriously as a private governance institution with a limited mandate and should resist efforts by governments to veto what it does.
Role of the Board
This decision, whether to admit a particular non-confusing, legal string into the root, is put before the ICANN Board because (1) we purport to speak on behalf of the global internet community and (2) the U.S. Department of Commerce defers to the judgments of that community when deciding what to tell its contractor to add to the authoritative root zone file.
As a Board, we cannot speak as *elected* representatives of the global internet community because we have not allowed elections for Board members. This application does not present any difficult technical questions, and even if it did we do not as a group claim to have special technical expertise. So this is not a technical stability and security question. It seems to me that the only plausible basis on which the Board can answer the question in the negative ("a group of people may *not* operate and use a lawful string of letters as a top level domain") is to say that the people affected by this decision have a broadly shared agreement that the admission of this string to the root would amount to unjustifiable wrongdoing. Otherwise, in the absence of technical considerations, the Board has no basis for rejecting this application.
Let me explain. The most fundamental value of the global internet community is that people who propose to use the internet protocols and infrastructures for otherwise lawful purposes, without threatening the operational stability or security of the internet, should be presumed to be entitled to do so. In a nutshell, ³everything not prohibited is permitted.² This understanding, this value, has led directly to the striking success of the internet around the world.
ICANN¹s role in gTLD policy development is to seek to assess and articulate the broadly shared values of the internet community. We have very limited authority and we can only speak on behalf of that community. I am personally not aware that any global consensus against the creation of an .xxx domain exists. In the absence of such a prohibition, and given our mandate to create TLD competition, we have no authority to block the addition of this TLD to the root.
It is very clear that we do not have a global shared set of values about content online, save for the global norm against child pornography. But the global internet community clearly *does* share the core value that no centralized authority should set itself up as the arbiter of what people may do together online, absent a demonstration that most of those affected by the proposed activity agree that it should be banned.
Process
More than three years ago, before I joined the Board, ICANN began a process for new sponsored top level domains. As I have said on many occasions, I think the idea of ³sponsorship² is an empty one. *All* generic TLDs should be considered ³sponsored² in that they should be able to create policies for themselves that are not dictated by ICANN. The only exceptions to this freedom for every TLD should be, of course, the (very few) global consensus policies that are created through the ICANN forum. This freedom is shared by the country code TLDs.
Notwithstanding my personal views on the vacuity of the ³sponsorship² idea, the fact is that ICANN evaluated the strength of the sponsorship of xxx (the relationship between the applicant and the ³community² behind the TLD) and, in my view, concluded that this criteria had been met as of June 2005; ICANN then went on to negotiate specific contractual terms with the applicant.
Since then, real and ³astroturf² comments (filed comments claiming to be grassroots opposition that have actually been generated by organized campaigns) have come in to ICANN that reflect opposition to this application. I do not find these recent comments sufficient to warrant re-visiting the question of the ³sponsorship² strength of this TLD which I personally believe to be closed.
No applicant for any ³sponsored² TLD could ever demonstrate unanimous, cheering approval for its application. We have no metric against which to measure this opposition, and thus we have no idea how significant it is. We should not be in the business of judging the level of market or community support for a new TLD before the fact. We will only get in the way of useful innovation if we take the view that every new TLD must prove itself to us before it can be added to the root.
It seems to me that what is meant by ³sponsorship² (a notion that I hope we abandon) is to show that there is enough interest in a particular TLD that it will be viable. We also have the idea that registrants should participate in (and be bound by) the creation of policies for a particular string. Both of these requirements have been met by this applicant. There is clearly enough interest (including more than 70,000 pre-registrations from 1,000 or more unique registrants who are members of the adult industry), and the applicant has undertaken to us that it will require adherence to its self-regulatory policies by all of its registrants. To the extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD makes a valuable contribution to the namespace, I differ with them. I do not think ICANN is capable of making such a determination. Indeed, this argument is very much like those made by the pre-divestiture AT&T when it claimed that no ³foreign attachments² to its network (like answering machines) should be allowed, in part because AT&T asserted there was no public demand for them. The rise of the internet was arguably made possible by allowing many ³foreign attachments² to the network - called modems.
We established a process for sTLDs some time ago. We have taken this applicant through this process. We now appear to be changing the process. We should not act in this fashion.
Politics
Discomfort with this application may have been sparked anew by (1) the letter from individual GAC members Janis Karklins and Sharil Tarmizi (to which Amb. Karklins has told us the GAC acceded as a whole by its silence), and (2) the letter from the Australian government.
I am not at all opposed to receiving advice from the Government Advisory Committee. But the entire point of ICANN¹s creation was to avoid the operation of chokepoint content control over the domain name system by individual or collective governments. The idea was that the US would serve as a good steward for other governmental concerns by staying in the background and overseeing ICANN¹s activities, but not engaging in content-related control. Australia¹s letter, and concerns expressed in the past by Brazil and other countries about xxx, are explicitly content-based and thus inappropriate, in my view.
If, after creation of an xxx TLD, certain governments of the world want to ensure that their citizens do not see xxx content, it is within their prerogative as sovereigns to instruct internet access providers physically located within their territory to block such content. Also, if certain governments want to ensure that *all* adult content providers with a physical presence in their country register exclusively within xxx, that is their prerogative as well. (I note that such a requirement in the U.S. would violate the First Amendment to our Constitution.) But this content-related censorship should not be ICANN¹s concern, and ICANN should not allow itself to be used as a private lever for government chokepoint content control by making up reasons to avoid the creation of such a TLD in the first place. To the extent there are public policy concerns with this TLD, they can be dealt with through local law. Registration in (or visitation of) domains in this TLD is purely voluntary.
If ICANN were to base its decisions on the views of the Australian (or US, or Brazilian) government, ICANN would have compromised away its very reason for existence as a private non-governmental governance institution.
Conclusion
I continue to be dissatisfied with elements of the proposed xxx contract, including but not limited to the ³rapid takedown² provision of Appendix S,1 which is manifestly designed to placate trademark owners and ignores the many due process concerns that have been expressed about the existing UDRP. I am confident that if I had a staff or enough time I could find many things to carp about in this draft contract. But I am certain that if I complained about these terms my concerns would be used to justify derailing this application for political reasons. I plan, therefore, to turn my attention to the new gTLD process that was promised for January 2007 (a promise that has not been kept) in hopes that we will someday have a standard contract and objective process that can help ICANN avoid engaging in unjustifiable ad hoc actions. We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the basis of their technical and financial strength, and we should avoid dealing with ³content² concerns to the maximum extent possible. We should be opening up new TLDs. I hope we will find a way to achieve such a sound process in short order. Rebecca Wanjiku, journalist, p.o box 33515, Nairobi.00600 Kenya.
Tel. 254 720 318 925
blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/
Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites <http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097;_ylc=X3oDMTFtNW45amVpBF9TA... k3NDA3NTg5BF9zAzI3MTk0ODEEcG9zAzEEc2VjA21haWx0YWdsaW5lBHNsawNxMS0wNw--> to find flight and hotel bargains.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/njeri.rionge%40igniteconsulti... .co.ke
=================================================== Njeri Rionge Chief Executive Officer Ignite Consulting Limited Eden Square 7th Floor Chiromo Rd, Westlands P. O. Box 15568 00100 GPO Nairobi, Kenya T: (254 20) 36732509 E: [email protected] http://www.igniteconsulting.co.ke Professional, Life Skills Coaching, Value Added Training on Conformity and Compliance, Business Management, Organizational Development and Facilitation.
Agree with you Njeri that ICANN's core mandate is technical regulation of the internet, however, the moment it made a decision on the dot XXX, a matter in my opinion that is ideologically loaded, it is moving out of technical regulation into the public policy sphere. Reason why numerous countries, and the EU for example, raised issues of public policy principles for management of internet resources during the WSIS Tunis agenda. As others have observed, the decision is indeed a symptom of international policy malaise on developing globally acceptable rules for governing the internet in the interest of the public and these contradictions are likely to recur. Njeri Rionge wrote:
Rebecca, I personally prefer to remain succinct.
In addition to the reasons stated in the resolution, I vote no for the following reasons.
1. that the ICM proposal does not take into account the global cultural issues and concerns that relate to the immediate introduction of this TLD onto the internet, 2. that the ICM proposal will not protect the relevant or interested community from the adult entertainment websites by a significant percentage 3. that the ICM proposal focuses on content management which is not in ICANN’s technical mandate 4. the ICM proposal conflicts with our recently consistent rebattle with ITU during the WSIS, which is still very fresh in our minds and the community, we need to be consistent with core mandate of ICANN
In reference to the resolution, this can be accessed:- http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-30mar07.htm
Be reminded that the vote was 9 against and 5 for, and 1 abstention. If you look at the trend from inception, this matter has even received a for vote initially and therefore cannot be sighted my this fact that the vote was based on morality and personal believes. This has been a complex issue and will continue to be until we resolve some fundamental principles of structure and redefined objectives of the institution/corporation as a whole.
Ps, this information was posted on the internet as well.
Njeri,
On 4/5/07 9:09 AM, "Rebecca Wanjiku" <[email protected]> wrote:
i thought we should expect reasons/explanations like this from ICANN representatives on the board, just a thought, read on
*Why I Voted for .XXX * By *Susan Crawford* <http://www.circleid.com/member/home/738/> <http://www.circleid.com/posts/why_i_voted_for_xxx/#comments> <http://www.circleid.com/member/tellafriend/1625/>
*The ICANN Board voted today 9-5, with Paul Twomey abstaining, to reject a proposal to open .xxx. This is my statement in connection with that vote. I found the resolution adopted by the Board (rejecting xxx) both weak and unprincipled. * I am troubled by the path the Board has followed on this issue since I joined the Board in December of 2005. I would like to make two points. First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it acts in an ad hoc fashion in response to political pressures. Second, ICANN should take itself seriously as a private governance institution with a limited mandate and should resist efforts by governments to veto what it does.
*Role of the Board * This decision, whether to admit a particular non-confusing, legal string into the root, is put before the ICANN Board because (1) we purport to speak on behalf of the global internet community and (2) the U.S. Department of Commerce defers to the judgments of that community when deciding what to tell its contractor to add to the authoritative root zone file.
As a Board, we cannot speak as *elected* representatives of the global internet community because we have not allowed elections for Board members. This application does not present any difficult technical questions, and even if it did we do not as a group claim to have special technical expertise. So this is not a technical stability and security question. It seems to me that the only plausible basis on which the Board can answer the question in the negative ("a group of people may *not* operate and use a lawful string of letters as a top level domain") is to say that the people affected by this decision have a broadly shared agreement that the admission of this string to the root would amount to unjustifiable wrongdoing. Otherwise, in the absence of technical considerations, the Board has no basis for rejecting this application.
Let me explain. The most fundamental value of the global internet community is that people who propose to use the internet protocols and infrastructures for otherwise lawful purposes, without threatening the operational stability or security of the internet, should be presumed to be entitled to do so. In a nutshell, “everything not prohibited is permitted.” This understanding, this value, has led directly to the striking success of the internet around the world.
ICANN’s role in gTLD policy development is to seek to assess and articulate the broadly shared values of the internet community. We have very limited authority and we can only speak on behalf of that community. I am personally not aware that any global consensus against the creation of an .xxx domain exists. In the absence of such a prohibition, and given our mandate to create TLD competition, we have no authority to block the addition of this TLD to the root.
It is very clear that we do not have a global shared set of values about content online, save for the global norm against child pornography. But the global internet community clearly *does* share the core value that no centralized authority should set itself up as the arbiter of what people may do together online, absent a demonstration that most of those affected by the proposed activity agree that it should be banned.
*Process * More than three years ago, before I joined the Board, ICANN began a process for new sponsored top level domains. As I have said on many occasions, I think the idea of “sponsorship” is an empty one. *All* generic TLDs should be considered “sponsored” in that they should be able to create policies for themselves that are not dictated by ICANN. The only exceptions to this freedom for every TLD should be, of course, the (very few) global consensus policies that are created through the ICANN forum. This freedom is shared by the country code TLDs.
Notwithstanding my personal views on the vacuity of the “sponsorship” idea, the fact is that ICANN evaluated the strength of the sponsorship of xxx (the relationship between the applicant and the “community” behind the TLD) and, in my view, concluded that this criteria had been met as of June 2005; ICANN then went on to negotiate specific contractual terms with the applicant.
Since then, real and “astroturf” comments (filed comments claiming to be grassroots opposition that have actually been generated by organized campaigns) have come in to ICANN that reflect opposition to this application. I do not find these recent comments sufficient to warrant re-visiting the question of the “sponsorship” strength of this TLD which I personally believe to be closed.
No applicant for any “sponsored” TLD could ever demonstrate unanimous, cheering approval for its application. We have no metric against which to measure this opposition, and thus we have no idea how significant it is. We should not be in the business of judging the level of market or community support for a new TLD before the fact. We will only get in the way of useful innovation if we take the view that every new TLD must prove itself to us before it can be added to the root.
It seems to me that what is meant by “sponsorship” (a notion that I hope we abandon) is to show that there is enough interest in a particular TLD that it will be viable. We also have the idea that registrants should participate in (and be bound by) the creation of policies for a particular string. Both of these requirements have been met by this applicant. There is clearly enough interest (including more than 70,000 pre-registrations from 1,000 or more unique registrants who are members of the adult industry), and the applicant has undertaken to us that it will require adherence to its self-regulatory policies by all of its registrants. To the extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD makes a valuable contribution to the namespace, I differ with them. I do not think ICANN is capable of making such a determination. Indeed, this argument is very much like those made by the pre-divestiture AT&T when it claimed that no “foreign attachments” to its network (like answering machines) should be allowed, in part because AT&T asserted there was no public demand for them. The rise of the internet was arguably made possible by allowing many “foreign attachments” to the network - called modems.
We established a process for sTLDs some time ago. We have taken this applicant through this process. We now appear to be changing the process. We should not act in this fashion.
*Politics * Discomfort with this application may have been sparked anew by (1) the letter from individual GAC members Janis Karklins and Sharil Tarmizi (to which Amb. Karklins has told us the GAC acceded as a whole by its silence), and (2) the letter from the Australian government.
I am not at all opposed to receiving advice from the Government Advisory Committee. But the entire point of ICANN’s creation was to avoid the operation of chokepoint content control over the domain name system by individual or collective governments. The idea was that the US would serve as a good steward for other governmental concerns by staying in the background and overseeing ICANN’s activities, but not engaging in content-related control. Australia’s letter, and concerns expressed in the past by Brazil and other countries about xxx, are explicitly content-based and thus inappropriate, in my view.
If, after creation of an xxx TLD, certain governments of the world want to ensure that their citizens do not see xxx content, it is within their prerogative as sovereigns to instruct internet access providers physically located within their territory to block such content. Also, if certain governments want to ensure that *all* adult content providers with a physical presence in their country register exclusively within xxx, that is their prerogative as well. (I note that such a requirement in the U.S. would violate the First Amendment to our Constitution.) But this content-related censorship should not be ICANN’s concern, and ICANN should not allow itself to be used as a private lever for government chokepoint content control by making up reasons to avoid the creation of such a TLD in the first place. To the extent there are public policy concerns with this TLD, they can be dealt with through local law. Registration in (or visitation of) domains in this TLD is purely voluntary.
If ICANN were to base its decisions on the views of the Australian (or US, or Brazilian) government, ICANN would have compromised away its very reason for existence as a private non-governmental governance institution.
*Conclusion * I continue to be dissatisfied with elements of the proposed xxx contract, including but not limited to the “rapid takedown” provision of Appendix S,1 which is manifestly designed to placate trademark owners and ignores the many due process concerns that have been expressed about the existing UDRP. I am confident that if I had a staff or enough time I could find many things to carp about in this draft contract. But I am certain that if I complained about these terms my concerns would be used to justify derailing this application for political reasons. I plan, therefore, to turn my attention to the new gTLD process that was promised for January 2007 (a promise that has not been kept) in hopes that we will someday have a standard contract and objective process that can help ICANN avoid engaging in unjustifiable ad hoc actions. We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the basis of their technical and financial strength, and we should avoid dealing with “content” concerns to the maximum extent possible. We should be opening up new TLDs. I hope we will find a way to achieve such a sound process in short order. Rebecca Wanjiku, journalist, p.o box 33515, Nairobi.00600 Kenya.
Tel. 254 720 318 925
blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites <http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097;_ylc=X3oDMTFtNW45amVpBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BF9zAzI3MTk0ODEEcG9zAzEEc2VjA21haWx0YWdsaW5lBHNsawNxMS0wNw--> to find flight and hotel bargains. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/njeri.rionge%40igniteconsulti...
=================================================== Njeri Rionge Chief Executive Officer Ignite Consulting Limited Eden Square 7th Floor Chiromo Rd, Westlands P. O. Box 15568 00100 GPO Nairobi, Kenya T: (254 20) 3673250—9 E: [email protected] http://www.igniteconsulting.co.ke _ /Professional, Life Skills Coaching, Value Added Training on Conformity and Compliance, Business Management, Organizational Development and Facilitation. /
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
Alice, Sorry I defer slightly on this, "In cases of conflict, public interest is supreme", whether regarding internet, broadcasting, print, advertising and all other media. To me, the same goes with ICANN. Maybe ICANN decision processes are the problem, it is the issue at hand, but where would it be the highest best place to establish a precedent? ICANN. I fear we could be ventilating to ICANN while this remains a test on right or wrong with ICANN in focus this time around? Next time will it not be, if it not always been, regulators over this content on TV, radio channels, print media, advertisements not internet domain names policy. Principally, would endorsing this domain generate more "eager want" essentially translating to advertising and popularising as now "ICANN globally acceptable norms"? And In the process wooing vulnerable, info-challenged (such as our rural 30 millions currrently unconnected) and innocent kids who will end up trapped? .xxx is bad for Kenya's economy. Global annual profits from trafficked forced labour is $32 billion (Sh2.4 trillion) with the Middle East, North and sub-Saharan Africa generating $1.75 billion (Sh131 billion). To grasp the impact and our international perception, relate this with global human trafficking which Kenya, unfortunately, has not had a very good record. Although things have changed with media reports of many coastal raids, in 2004 were ranked on "Tier 2 watchlist" in this document <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/34158.pdf> Kenya is a country of origin, destination, and transit for victims trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. Victims are trafficked from South Asian and East Asian countries and the Middle East through Kenya to European destinations for sexual exploitation. Asian nationals, principally Indians, Bangladeshi, and Nepalese, are trafficked into Kenya and coerced into bonded labor in the construction and garment industries. Kenyan children are trafficked internally from rural areas to urban centers and coastal areas into involuntary servitude, including work as street vendors and day laborers, and into prostitution. Women and children are trafficked from Burundi and Rwanda to coastal areas in Kenya for sexual exploitation in the growing sex tourism industry. So what's the big deal .xxx? That stuff is plenty already out there will not automagically disappear from current domains, if .xxx was agreed to, maybe it would have even become more expensive to target users anyway because domain name sponsors would expect a royalty fee? Needless to say this would also make it more lucrative for content filter programs makers. Curiosity killed the cat. More interest would be created to access among kids told never to go to these domains- (like in the Adam and Eve story). Who will be next after ICANN, advocates may ask for legit billboards, specialised broadcasts channels and because they claim will be responsible, they will ask all radio and TV owners to buy special channels filters, as new channels get "licensed"? Filters would be a very big additional cost to many users around the world. Content filters selling programs is already quite lucrative business. /Alex alice <[email protected]> wrote: Agree with you Njeri that ICANN's core mandate is technical regulation of the internet, however, the moment it made a decision on the dot XXX, a matter in my opinion that is ideologically loaded, it is moving out of technical regulation into the public policy sphere. Reason why numerous countries, and the EU for example, raised issues of public policy principles for management of internet resources during the WSIS Tunis agenda. As others have observed, the decision is indeed a symptom of international policy malaise on developing globally acceptable rules for governing the internet in the interest of the public and these contradictions are likely to recur. Njeri Rionge wrote:
Rebecca, I personally prefer to remain succinct.
In addition to the reasons stated in the resolution, I vote no for the following reasons.
1. that the ICM proposal does not take into account the global cultural issues and concerns that relate to the immediate introduction of this TLD onto the internet, 2. that the ICM proposal will not protect the relevant or interested community from the adult entertainment websites by a significant percentage 3. that the ICM proposal focuses on content management which is not in ICANNs technical mandate 4. the ICM proposal conflicts with our recently consistent rebattle with ITU during the WSIS, which is still very fresh in our minds and the community, we need to be consistent with core mandate of ICANN
In reference to the resolution, this can be accessed:- http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-30mar07.htm
Be reminded that the vote was 9 against and 5 for, and 1 abstention. If you look at the trend from inception, this matter has even received a for vote initially and therefore cannot be sighted my this fact that the vote was based on morality and personal believes. This has been a complex issue and will continue to be until we resolve some fundamental principles of structure and redefined objectives of the institution/corporation as a whole.
Ps, this information was posted on the internet as well.
Njeri,
On 4/5/07 9:09 AM, "Rebecca Wanjiku" wrote:
i thought we should expect reasons/explanations like this from ICANN representatives on the board, just a thought, read on
*Why I Voted for .XXX * By *Susan Crawford*
*The ICANN Board voted today 9-5, with Paul Twomey abstaining, to reject a proposal to open .xxx. This is my statement in connection with that vote. I found the resolution adopted by the Board (rejecting xxx) both weak and unprincipled. * I am troubled by the path the Board has followed on this issue since I joined the Board in December of 2005. I would like to make two points. First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it acts in an ad hoc fashion in response to political pressures. Second, ICANN should take itself seriously as a private governance institution with a limited mandate and should resist efforts by governments to veto what it does.
*Role of the Board * This decision, whether to admit a particular non-confusing, legal string into the root, is put before the ICANN Board because (1) we purport to speak on behalf of the global internet community and (2) the U.S. Department of Commerce defers to the judgments of that community when deciding what to tell its contractor to add to the authoritative root zone file.
As a Board, we cannot speak as *elected* representatives of the global internet community because we have not allowed elections for Board members. This application does not present any difficult technical questions, and even if it did we do not as a group claim to have special technical expertise. So this is not a technical stability and security question. It seems to me that the only plausible basis on which the Board can answer the question in the negative ("a group of people may *not* operate and use a lawful string of letters as a top level domain") is to say that the people affected by this decision have a broadly shared agreement that the admission of this string to the root would amount to unjustifiable wrongdoing. Otherwise, in the absence of technical considerations, the Board has no basis for rejecting this application.
Let me explain. The most fundamental value of the global internet community is that people who propose to use the internet protocols and infrastructures for otherwise lawful purposes, without threatening the operational stability or security of the internet, should be presumed to be entitled to do so. In a nutshell, everything not prohibited is permitted. This understanding, this value, has led directly to the striking success of the internet around the world.
ICANNs role in gTLD policy development is to seek to assess and articulate the broadly shared values of the internet community. We have very limited authority and we can only speak on behalf of that community. I am personally not aware that any global consensus against the creation of an .xxx domain exists. In the absence of such a prohibition, and given our mandate to create TLD competition, we have no authority to block the addition of this TLD to the root.
It is very clear that we do not have a global shared set of values about content online, save for the global norm against child pornography. But the global internet community clearly *does* share the core value that no centralized authority should set itself up as the arbiter of what people may do together online, absent a demonstration that most of those affected by the proposed activity agree that it should be banned.
*Process * More than three years ago, before I joined the Board, ICANN began a process for new sponsored top level domains. As I have said on many occasions, I think the idea of sponsorship is an empty one. *All* generic TLDs should be considered sponsored in that they should be able to create policies for themselves that are not dictated by ICANN. The only exceptions to this freedom for every TLD should be, of course, the (very few) global consensus policies that are created through the ICANN forum. This freedom is shared by the country code TLDs.
Notwithstanding my personal views on the vacuity of the sponsorship idea, the fact is that ICANN evaluated the strength of the sponsorship of xxx (the relationship between the applicant and the community behind the TLD) and, in my view, concluded that this criteria had been met as of June 2005; ICANN then went on to negotiate specific contractual terms with the applicant.
Since then, real and astroturf comments (filed comments claiming to be grassroots opposition that have actually been generated by organized campaigns) have come in to ICANN that reflect opposition to this application. I do not find these recent comments sufficient to warrant re-visiting the question of the sponsorship strength of this TLD which I personally believe to be closed.
No applicant for any sponsored TLD could ever demonstrate unanimous, cheering approval for its application. We have no metric against which to measure this opposition, and thus we have no idea how significant it is. We should not be in the business of judging the level of market or community support for a new TLD before the fact. We will only get in the way of useful innovation if we take the view that every new TLD must prove itself to us before it can be added to the root.
It seems to me that what is meant by sponsorship (a notion that I hope we abandon) is to show that there is enough interest in a particular TLD that it will be viable. We also have the idea that registrants should participate in (and be bound by) the creation of policies for a particular string. Both of these requirements have been met by this applicant. There is clearly enough interest (including more than 70,000 pre-registrations from 1,000 or more unique registrants who are members of the adult industry), and the applicant has undertaken to us that it will require adherence to its self-regulatory policies by all of its registrants. To the extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD makes a valuable contribution to the namespace, I differ with them. I do not think ICANN is capable of making such a determination. Indeed, this argument is very much like those made by the pre-divestiture AT&T when it claimed that no foreign attachments to its network (like answering machines) should be allowed, in part because AT&T asserted there was no public demand for them. The rise of the internet was arguably made possible by allowing many foreign attachments to the network - called modems.
We established a process for sTLDs some time ago. We have taken this applicant through this process. We now appear to be changing the process. We should not act in this fashion.
*Politics * Discomfort with this application may have been sparked anew by (1) the letter from individual GAC members Janis Karklins and Sharil Tarmizi (to which Amb. Karklins has told us the GAC acceded as a whole by its silence), and (2) the letter from the Australian government.
I am not at all opposed to receiving advice from the Government Advisory Committee. But the entire point of ICANNs creation was to avoid the operation of chokepoint content control over the domain name system by individual or collective governments. The idea was that the US would serve as a good steward for other governmental concerns by staying in the background and overseeing ICANNs activities, but not engaging in content-related control. Australias letter, and concerns expressed in the past by Brazil and other countries about xxx, are explicitly content-based and thus inappropriate, in my view.
If, after creation of an xxx TLD, certain governments of the world want to ensure that their citizens do not see xxx content, it is within their prerogative as sovereigns to instruct internet access providers physically located within their territory to block such content. Also, if certain governments want to ensure that *all* adult content providers with a physical presence in their country register exclusively within xxx, that is their prerogative as well. (I note that such a requirement in the U.S. would violate the First Amendment to our Constitution.) But this content-related censorship should not be ICANNs concern, and ICANN should not allow itself to be used as a private lever for government chokepoint content control by making up reasons to avoid the creation of such a TLD in the first place. To the extent there are public policy concerns with this TLD, they can be dealt with through local law. Registration in (or visitation of) domains in this TLD is purely voluntary.
If ICANN were to base its decisions on the views of the Australian (or US, or Brazilian) government, ICANN would have compromised away its very reason for existence as a private non-governmental governance institution.
*Conclusion * I continue to be dissatisfied with elements of the proposed xxx contract, including but not limited to the rapid takedown provision of Appendix S,1 which is manifestly designed to placate trademark owners and ignores the many due process concerns that have been expressed about the existing UDRP. I am confident that if I had a staff or enough time I could find many things to carp about in this draft contract. But I am certain that if I complained about these terms my concerns would be used to justify derailing this application for political reasons. I plan, therefore, to turn my attention to the new gTLD process that was promised for January 2007 (a promise that has not been kept) in hopes that we will someday have a standard contract and objective process that can help ICANN avoid engaging in unjustifiable ad hoc actions. We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the basis of their technical and financial strength, and we should avoid dealing with content concerns to the maximum extent possible. We should be opening up new TLDs. I hope we will find a way to achieve such a sound process in short order. Rebecca Wanjiku, journalist, p.o box 33515, Nairobi.00600 Kenya.
Tel. 254 720 318 925
blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites
to find flight and hotel bargains. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/njeri.rionge%40igniteconsulti...
=================================================== Njeri Rionge Chief Executive Officer Ignite Consulting Limited Eden Square 7th Floor Chiromo Rd, Westlands P. O. Box 15568 00100 GPO Nairobi, Kenya T: (254 20) 36732509 E: [email protected] http://www.igniteconsulting.co.ke _ /Professional, Life Skills Coaching, Value Added Training on Conformity and Compliance, Business Management, Organizational Development and Facilitation. /
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com --------------------------------- Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Alex, am afraid then this would be an attempt to "impose all intolerances cumulatively on everyone" ICANN's criteria for consideration of TLD selection will constantly pit one culture against another and in a way this invites the view that creation of TLD's is based on a set of ideas rather than coordination of unique strings. I am afraid this is the beginning of suppression of diversity and expression. ICANN should have approved and let public policy at the national level negotiate and regulate according to their norms Alex Gakuru wrote:
Alice,
Sorry I defer slightly on this, "In cases of conflict, public interest is supreme", whether regarding internet, broadcasting, print, advertising and all other media. To me, the same goes with ICANN.
Maybe ICANN decision processes are the problem, it is the issue at hand, but where would it be the highest best place to establish a precedent? ICANN.
I fear we could be ventilating to ICANN while this remains a test on right or wrong with ICANN in focus this time around?
Next time will it not be, if it not always been, regulators over this content on TV, radio channels, print media, advertisements not internet domain names policy.
Principally, would endorsing this domain generate more "eager want" essentially translating to advertising and popularising as now "ICANN globally acceptable norms"? And In the process wooing vulnerable, info-challenged (such as our rural 30 millions currrently unconnected) and innocent kids who will end up trapped?
.xxx is bad for Kenya's economy. Global annual profits from trafficked forced labour is $32 billion (Sh2.4 trillion) with the Middle East, North and sub-Saharan Africa generating $1.75 billion (Sh131 billion).
To grasp the impact and our international perception, relate this with global human trafficking which Kenya, unfortunately, has not had a very good record. Although things have changed with media reports of many coastal raids, in 2004 were ranked on "Tier 2 watchlist" in this document <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/34158.pdf> “Kenya is a country of origin, destination, and transit for victims trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. Victims are trafficked from South Asian and East Asian countries and the Middle East through Kenya to European destinations for sexual exploitation. Asian nationals, principally Indians, Bangladeshi, and Nepalese, are trafficked into Kenya and coerced into bonded labor in the construction and garment industries. Kenyan children are trafficked internally from rural areas to urban centers and coastal areas into involuntary servitude, including work as street vendors and day laborers, and into prostitution. Women and children are trafficked from Burundi and Rwanda to coastal areas in Kenya for sexual exploitation in the growing sex tourism industry.” So what's the big deal .xxx? That stuff is plenty already out there will not automagically disappear from current domains, if .xxx was agreed to, maybe it would have even become more expensive to target users anyway because domain name sponsors would expect a royalty fee?
Needless to say this would also make it more lucrative for content filter programs makers.
Curiosity killed the cat. More interest would be created to access among kids told never to go to these domains- (like in the Adam and Eve story).
Who will be next after ICANN, advocates may ask for legit billboards, specialised broadcasts channels and because they claim will be responsible, they will ask all radio and TV owners to buy special channels filters, as new channels get "licensed"? Filters would be a very big additional cost to many users around the world. Content filters selling programs is already quite lucrative business.
/Alex
*/alice <[email protected]>/* wrote:
Agree with you Njeri that ICANN's core mandate is technical regulation of the internet, however, the moment it made a decision on the dot XXX, a matter in my opinion that is ideologically loaded, it is moving out of technical regulation into the public policy sphere.
Reason why numerous countries, and the EU for example, raised issues of public policy principles for management of internet resources during the WSIS Tunis agenda.
As others have observed, the decision is indeed a symptom of international policy malaise on developing globally acceptable rules for governing the internet in the interest of the public and these contradictions are likely to recur.
Njeri Rionge wrote: > > Rebecca, I personally prefer to remain succinct. > > In addition to the reasons stated in the resolution, I vote no for the > following reasons. > > > 1. that the ICM proposal does not take into account the > global cultural issues and concerns that relate to the > immediate introduction of this TLD onto the internet, > 2. that the ICM proposal will not protect the relevant or > interested community from the adult entertainment > websites by a significant percentage > 3. that the ICM proposal focuses on content management > which is not in ICANN’s technical mandate > 4. the ICM proposal conflicts with our recently consistent > rebattle with ITU during the WSIS, which is still very > fresh in our minds and the community, we need to be > consistent with core mandate of ICANN > > > In reference to the resolution, this can be accessed:- > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-30mar07.htm > > Be reminded that the vote was 9 against and 5 for, and 1 abstention. > If you look at the trend from inception, this matter has even received > a for vote initially and therefore cannot be sighted my this fact that > the vote was based on morality and personal believes. This has been a > complex issue and will continue to be until we resolve some > fundamental principles of structure and redefined objectives of the > institution/corporation as a whole. > > Ps, this information was posted on the internet as well. > > > Njeri, > > > On 4/5/07 9:09 AM, "Rebecca Wanjiku" wrote: > > i thought we should expect reasons/explanations like this from > ICANN representatives on the board, > just a thought, > read on > > > *Why I Voted for .XXX > * > By *Susan Crawford* > > > > *The ICANN Board voted today 9-5, with Paul Twomey abstaining, to > reject a proposal to open .xxx. This is my statement in connection > with that vote. I found the resolution adopted by the Board > (rejecting xxx) both weak and unprincipled. > * > I am troubled by the path the Board has followed on this issue > since I joined the Board in December of 2005. I would like to make > two points. First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it > acts in an ad hoc fashion in response to political pressures. > Second, ICANN should take itself seriously as a private governance > institution with a limited mandate and should resist efforts by > governments to veto what it does. > > *Role of the Board > * > This decision, whether to admit a particular non-confusing, legal > string into the root, is put before the ICANN Board because (1) we > purport to speak on behalf of the global internet community and > (2) the U.S. Department of Commerce defers to the judgments of > that community when deciding what to tell its contractor to add to > the authoritative root zone file. > > As a Board, we cannot speak as *elected* representatives of the > global internet community because we have not allowed elections > for Board members. This application does not present any difficult > technical questions, and even if it did we do not as a group claim > to have special technical expertise. So this is not a technical > stability and security question. It seems to me that the only > plausible basis on which the Board can answer the question in the > negative ("a group of people may *not* operate and use a lawful > string of letters as a top level domain") is to say that the > people affected by this decision have a broadly shared agreement > that the admission of this string to the root would amount to > unjustifiable wrongdoing. Otherwise, in the absence of technical > considerations, the Board has no basis for rejecting this application. > > Let me explain. The most fundamental value of the global internet > community is that people who propose to use the internet protocols > and infrastructures for otherwise lawful purposes, without > threatening the operational stability or security of the internet, > should be presumed to be entitled to do so. In a nutshell, > “everything not prohibited is permitted.” This understanding, this > value, has led directly to the striking success of the internet > around the world. > > ICANN’s role in gTLD policy development is to seek to assess and > articulate the broadly shared values of the internet community. We > have very limited authority and we can only speak on behalf of > that community. I am personally not aware that any global > consensus against the creation of an .xxx domain exists. In the > absence of such a prohibition, and given our mandate to create TLD > competition, we have no authority to block the addition of this > TLD to the root. > > It is very clear that we do not have a global shared set of values > about content online, save for the global norm against child > pornography. But the global internet community clearly *does* > share the core value that no centralized authority should set > itself up as the arbiter of what people may do together online, > absent a demonstration that most of those affected by the proposed > activity agree that it should be banned. > > *Process > * > More than three years ago, before I joined the Board, ICANN began > a process for new sponsored top level domains. As I have said on > many occasions, I think the idea of “sponsorship” is an empty one. > *All* generic TLDs should be considered “sponsored” in that they > should be able to create policies for themselves that are not > dictated by ICANN. The only exceptions to this freedom for every > TLD should be, of course, the (very few) global consensus policies > that are created through the ICANN forum. This freedom is shared > by the country code TLDs. > > Notwithstanding my personal views on the vacuity of the > “sponsorship” idea, the fact is that ICANN evaluated the strength > of the sponsorship of xxx (the relationship between the applicant > and the “community” behind the TLD) and, in my view, concluded > that this criteria had been met as of June 2005; ICANN then went > on to negotiate specific contractual terms with the applicant. > > Since then, real and “astroturf” comments (filed comments claiming > to be grassroots opposition that have actually been generated by > organized campaigns) have come in to ICANN that reflect opposition > to this application. I do not find these recent comments > sufficient to warrant re-visiting the question of the > “sponsorship” strength of this TLD which I personally believe to > be closed. > > No applicant for any “sponsored” TLD could ever demonstrate > unanimous, cheering approval for its application. We have no > metric against which to measure this opposition, and thus we have > no idea how significant it is. We should not be in the business of > judging the level of market or community support for a new TLD > before the fact. We will only get in the way of useful innovation > if we take the view that every new TLD must prove itself to us > before it can be added to the root. > > It seems to me that what is meant by “sponsorship” (a notion that > I hope we abandon) is to show that there is enough interest in a > particular TLD that it will be viable. We also have the idea that > registrants should participate in (and be bound by) the creation > of policies for a particular string. Both of these requirements > have been met by this applicant. There is clearly enough interest > (including more than 70,000 pre-registrations from 1,000 or more > unique registrants who are members of the adult industry), and the > applicant has undertaken to us that it will require adherence to > its self-regulatory policies by all of its registrants. To the > extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN > should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD > makes a valuable contribution to the namespace, I differ with > them. I do not think ICANN is capable of making such a > determination. Indeed, this argument is very much like those made > by the pre-divestiture AT&T when it claimed that no “foreign > attachments” to its network (like answering machines) should be > allowed, in part because AT&T asserted there was no public demand > for them. The rise of the internet was arguably made possible by > allowing many “foreign attachments” to the network - called modems. > > We established a process for sTLDs some time ago. We have taken > this applicant through this process. We now appear to be changing > the process. We should not act in this fashion. > > *Politics > * > Discomfort with this application may have been sparked anew by (1) > the letter from individual GAC members Janis Karklins and Sharil > Tarmizi (to which Amb. Karklins has told us the GAC acceded as a > whole by its silence), and (2) the letter from the Australian > government. > > I am not at all opposed to receiving advice from the Government > Advisory Committee. But the entire point of ICANN’s creation was > to avoid the operation of chokepoint content control over the > domain name system by individual or collective governments. The > idea was that the US would serve as a good steward for other > governmental concerns by staying in the background and overseeing > ICANN’s activities, but not engaging in content-related control. > Australia’s letter, and concerns expressed in the past by Brazil > and other countries about xxx, are explicitly content-based and > thus inappropriate, in my view. > > If, after creation of an xxx TLD, certain governments of the world > want to ensure that their citizens do not see xxx content, it is > within their prerogative as sovereigns to instruct internet access > providers physically located within their territory to block such > content. Also, if certain governments want to ensure that *all* > adult content providers with a physical presence in their country > register exclusively within xxx, that is their prerogative as > well. (I note that such a requirement in the U.S. would violate > the First Amendment to our Constitution.) But this content-related > censorship should not be ICANN’s concern, and ICANN should not > allow itself to be used as a private lever for government > chokepoint content control by making up reasons to avoid the > creation of such a TLD in the first place. To the extent there are > public policy concerns with this TLD, they can be dealt with > through local law. Registration in (or visitation of) domains in > this TLD is purely voluntary. > > If ICANN were to base its decisions on the views of the Australian > (or US, or Brazilian) government, ICANN would have compromised > away its very reason for existence as a private non-governmental > governance institution. > > *Conclusion > * > I continue to be dissatisfied with elements of the proposed xxx > contract, including but not limited to the “rapid takedown” > provision of Appendix S,1 which is manifestly designed to placate > trademark owners and ignores the many due process concerns that > have been expressed about the existing UDRP. I am confident that > if I had a staff or enough time I could find many things to carp > about in this draft contract. But I am certain that if I > complained about these terms my concerns would be used to justify > derailing this application for political reasons. I plan, > therefore, to turn my attention to the new gTLD process that was > promised for January 2007 (a promise that has not been kept) in > hopes that we will someday have a standard contract and objective > process that can help ICANN avoid engaging in unjustifiable ad hoc > actions. We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the > basis of their technical and financial strength, and we should > avoid dealing with “content” concerns to the maximum extent > possible. We should be opening up new TLDs. I hope we will find a > way to achieve such a sound process in short order. > Rebecca Wanjiku, > journalist, > p.o box 33515, > Nairobi.00600 > Kenya. > > Tel. 254 720 318 925 > > blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Finding fabulous fares is fun. > Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites > > to find flight and hotel bargains. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > [email protected] > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/njeri.rionge%40igniteconsulti... > > > > =================================================== > Njeri Rionge > Chief Executive Officer > Ignite Consulting Limited > Eden Square 7th Floor > Chiromo Rd, Westlands > P. O. Box 15568 00100 GPO Nairobi, Kenya > T: (254 20) 3673250—9 > E: [email protected] > http://www.igniteconsulting.co.ke > _ > /Professional, Life Skills Coaching, Value Added Training on > Conformity and Compliance, > Business Management, Organizational Development and Facilitation. > / > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > [email protected] > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars <http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE0OGRsc3F2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3Y2Fycw--> at Yahoo! Autos. <http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE0OGRsc3F2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3Y2Fycw-->
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
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. 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) 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. 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? 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. 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> 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. /Alex alice <[email protected]> wrote: Alex, am afraid then this would be an attempt to "impose all intolerances cumulatively on everyone" ICANN's criteria for consideration of TLD selection will constantly pit one culture against another and in a way this invites the view that creation of TLD's is based on a set of ideas rather than coordination of unique strings. I am afraid this is the beginning of suppression of diversity and expression. ICANN should have approved and let public policy at the national level negotiate and regulate according to their norms Alex Gakuru wrote:
Alice,
Sorry I defer slightly on this, "In cases of conflict, public interest is supreme", whether regarding internet, broadcasting, print, advertising and all other media. To me, the same goes with ICANN.
Maybe ICANN decision processes are the problem, it is the issue at hand, but where would it be the highest best place to establish a precedent? ICANN.
I fear we could be ventilating to ICANN while this remains a test on right or wrong with ICANN in focus this time around?
Next time will it not be, if it not always been, regulators over this content on TV, radio channels, print media, advertisements not internet domain names policy.
Principally, would endorsing this domain generate more "eager want" essentially translating to advertising and popularising as now "ICANN globally acceptable norms"? And In the process wooing vulnerable, info-challenged (such as our rural 30 millions currrently unconnected) and innocent kids who will end up trapped?
.xxx is bad for Kenya's economy. Global annual profits from trafficked forced labour is $32 billion (Sh2.4 trillion) with the Middle East, North and sub-Saharan Africa generating $1.75 billion (Sh131 billion).
To grasp the impact and our international perception, relate this with global human trafficking which Kenya, unfortunately, has not had a very good record. Although things have changed with media reports of many coastal raids, in 2004 were ranked on "Tier 2 watchlist" in this document
�Kenya is a country of origin, destination, and transit for victims trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. Victims are trafficked from South Asian and East Asian countries and the Middle East through Kenya to European destinations for sexual exploitation. Asian nationals, principally Indians, Bangladeshi, and Nepalese, are trafficked into Kenya and coerced into bonded labor in the construction and garment industries. Kenyan children are trafficked internally from rural areas to urban centers and coastal areas into involuntary servitude, including work as street vendors and day laborers, and into prostitution. Women and children are trafficked from Burundi and Rwanda to coastal areas in Kenya for sexual exploitation in the growing sex tourism industry.� So what's the big deal .xxx? That stuff is plenty already out there will not automagically disappear from current domains, if .xxx was agreed to, maybe it would have even become more expensive to target users anyway because domain name sponsors would expect a royalty fee?
Needless to say this would also make it more lucrative for content filter programs makers.
Curiosity killed the cat. More interest would be created to access among kids told never to go to these domains- (like in the Adam and Eve story).
Who will be next after ICANN, advocates may ask for legit billboards, specialised broadcasts channels and because they claim will be responsible, they will ask all radio and TV owners to buy special channels filters, as new channels get "licensed"? Filters would be a very big additional cost to many users around the world. Content filters selling programs is already quite lucrative business.
/Alex
*/alice /* wrote:
Agree with you Njeri that ICANN's core mandate is technical regulation of the internet, however, the moment it made a decision on the dot XXX, a matter in my opinion that is ideologically loaded, it is moving out of technical regulation into the public policy sphere.
Reason why numerous countries, and the EU for example, raised issues of public policy principles for management of internet resources during the WSIS Tunis agenda.
As others have observed, the decision is indeed a symptom of international policy malaise on developing globally acceptable rules for governing the internet in the interest of the public and these contradictions are likely to recur.
Njeri Rionge wrote: > > Rebecca, I personally prefer to remain succinct. > > In addition to the reasons stated in the resolution, I vote no for the > following reasons. > > > 1. that the ICM proposal does not take into account the > global cultural issues and concerns that relate to the > immediate introduction of this TLD onto the internet, > 2. that the ICM proposal will not protect the relevant or > interested community from the adult entertainment > websites by a significant percentage > 3. that the ICM proposal focuses on content management > which is not in ICANN�s technical mandate > 4. the ICM proposal conflicts with our recently consistent > rebattle with ITU during the WSIS, which is still very > fresh in our minds and the community, we need to be > consistent with core mandate of ICANN > > > In reference to the resolution, this can be accessed:- > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-30mar07.htm > > Be reminded that the vote was 9 against and 5 for, and 1 abstention. > If you look at the trend from inception, this matter has even received > a for vote initially and therefore cannot be sighted my this fact that > the vote was based on morality and personal believes. This has been a > complex issue and will continue to be until we resolve some > fundamental principles of structure and redefined objectives of the > institution/corporation as a whole. > > Ps, this information was posted on the internet as well. > > > Njeri, > > > On 4/5/07 9:09 AM, "Rebecca Wanjiku" wrote: > > i thought we should expect reasons/explanations like this from > ICANN representatives on the board, > just a thought, > read on > > > *Why I Voted for .XXX > * > By *Susan Crawford* > > > > *The ICANN Board voted today 9-5, with Paul Twomey abstaining, to > reject a proposal to open .xxx. This is my statement in connection > with that vote. I found the resolution adopted by the Board > (rejecting xxx) both weak and unprincipled. > * > I am troubled by the path the Board has followed on this issue > since I joined the Board in December of 2005. I would like to make > two points. First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it > acts in an ad hoc fashion in response to political pressures. > Second, ICANN should take itself seriously as a private governance > institution with a limited mandate and should resist efforts by > governments to veto what it does. > > *Role of the Board > * > This decision, whether to admit a particular non-confusing, legal > string into the root, is put before the ICANN Board because (1) we > purport to speak on behalf of the global internet community and > (2) the U.S. Department of Commerce defers to the judgments of > that community when deciding what to tell its contractor to add to > the authoritative root zone file. > > As a Board, we cannot speak as *elected* representatives of the > global internet community because we have not allowed elections > for Board members. This application does not present any difficult > technical questions, and even if it did we do not as a group claim > to have special technical expertise. So this is not a technical > stability and security question. It seems to me that the only > plausible basis on which the Board can answer the question in the > negative ("a group of people may *not* operate and use a lawful > string of letters as a top level domain") is to say that the > people affected by this decision have a broadly shared agreement > that the admission of this string to the root would amount to > unjustifiable wrongdoing. Otherwise, in the absence of technical > considerations, the Board has no basis for rejecting this application. > > Let me explain. The most fundamental value of the global internet > community is that people who propose to use the internet protocols > and infrastructures for otherwise lawful purposes, without > threatening the operational stability or security of the internet, > should be presumed to be entitled to do so. In a nutshell, > �everything not prohibited is permitted.� This understanding, this > value, has led directly to the striking success of the internet > around the world. > > ICANN�s role in gTLD policy development is to seek to assess and > articulate the broadly shared values of the internet community. We > have very limited authority and we can only speak on behalf of > that community. I am personally not aware that any global > consensus against the creation of an .xxx domain exists. In the > absence of such a prohibition, and given our mandate to create TLD > competition, we have no authority to block the addition of this > TLD to the root. > > It is very clear that we do not have a global shared set of values > about content online, save for the global norm against child > pornography. But the global internet community clearly *does* > share the core value that no centralized authority should set > itself up as the arbiter of what people may do together online, > absent a demonstration that most of those affected by the proposed > activity agree that it should be banned. > > *Process > * > More than three years ago, before I joined the Board, ICANN began > a process for new sponsored top level domains. As I have said on > many occasions, I think the idea of �sponsorship� is an empty one. > *All* generic TLDs should be considered �sponsored� in that they > should be able to create policies for themselves that are not > dictated by ICANN. The only exceptions to this freedom for every > TLD should be, of course, the (very few) global consensus policies > that are created through the ICANN forum. This freedom is shared > by the country code TLDs. > > Notwithstanding my personal views on the vacuity of the > �sponsorship� idea, the fact is that ICANN evaluated the strength > of the sponsorship of xxx (the relationship between the applicant > and the �community� behind the TLD) and, in my view, concluded > that this criteria had been met as of June 2005; ICANN then went > on to negotiate specific contractual terms with the applicant. > > Since then, real and �astroturf� comments (filed comments claiming > to be grassroots opposition that have actually been generated by > organized campaigns) have come in to ICANN that reflect opposition > to this application. I do not find these recent comments > sufficient to warrant re-visiting the question of the > �sponsorship� strength of this TLD which I personally believe to > be closed. > > No applicant for any �sponsored� TLD could ever demonstrate > unanimous, cheering approval for its application. We have no > metric against which to measure this opposition, and thus we have > no idea how significant it is. We should not be in the business of > judging the level of market or community support for a new TLD > before the fact. We will only get in the way of useful innovation > if we take the view that every new TLD must prove itself to us > before it can be added to the root. > > It seems to me that what is meant by �sponsorship� (a notion that > I hope we abandon) is to show that there is enough interest in a > particular TLD that it will be viable. We also have the idea that > registrants should participate in (and be bound by) the creation > of policies for a particular string. Both of these requirements > have been met by this applicant. There is clearly enough interest > (including more than 70,000 pre-registrations from 1,000 or more > unique registrants who are members of the adult industry), and the > applicant has undertaken to us that it will require adherence to > its self-regulatory policies by all of its registrants. To the > extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN > should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD > makes a valuable contribution to the namespace, I differ with > them. I do not think ICANN is capable of making such a > determination. Indeed, this argument is very much like those made > by the pre-divestiture AT&T when it claimed that no �foreign > attachments� to its network (like answering machines) should be > allowed, in part because AT&T asserted there was no public demand > for them. The rise of the internet was arguably made possible by > allowing many �foreign attachments� to the network - called modems. > > We established a process for sTLDs some time ago. We have taken > this applicant through this process. We now appear to be changing > the process. We should not act in this fashion. > > *Politics > * > Discomfort with this application may have been sparked anew by (1) > the letter from individual GAC members Janis Karklins and Sharil > Tarmizi (to which Amb. Karklins has told us the GAC acceded as a > whole by its silence), and (2) the letter from the Australian > government. > > I am not at all opposed to receiving advice from the Government > Advisory Committee. But the entire point of ICANN�s creation was > to avoid the operation of chokepoint content control over the > domain name system by individual or collective governments. The > idea was that the US would serve as a good steward for other > governmental concerns by staying in the background and overseeing > ICANN�s activities, but not engaging in content-related control. > Australia�s letter, and concerns expressed in the past by Brazil > and other countries about xxx, are explicitly content-based and > thus inappropriate, in my view. > > If, after creation of an xxx TLD, certain governments of the world > want to ensure that their citizens do not see xxx content, it is > within their prerogative as sovereigns to instruct internet access > providers physically located within their territory to block such > content. Also, if certain governments want to ensure that *all* > adult content providers with a physical presence in their country > register exclusively within xxx, that is their prerogative as > well. (I note that such a requirement in the U.S. would violate > the First Amendment to our Constitution.) But this content-related > censorship should not be ICANN�s concern, and ICANN should not > allow itself to be used as a private lever for government > chokepoint content control by making up reasons to avoid the > creation of such a TLD in the first place. To the extent there are > public policy concerns with this TLD, they can be dealt with > through local law. Registration in (or visitation of) domains in > this TLD is purely voluntary. > > If ICANN were to base its decisions on the views of the Australian > (or US, or Brazilian) government, ICANN would have compromised > away its very reason for existence as a private non-governmental > governance institution. > > *Conclusion > * > I continue to be dissatisfied with elements of the proposed xxx > contract, including but not limited to the �rapid takedown� > provision of Appendix S,1 which is manifestly designed to placate > trademark owners and ignores the many due process concerns that > have been expressed about the existing UDRP. I am confident that > if I had a staff or enough time I could find many things to carp > about in this draft contract. But I am certain that if I > complained about these terms my concerns would be used to justify > derailing this application for political reasons. I plan, > therefore, to turn my attention to the new gTLD process that was > promised for January 2007 (a promise that has not been kept) in > hopes that we will someday have a standard contract and objective > process that can help ICANN avoid engaging in unjustifiable ad hoc > actions. We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the > basis of their technical and financial strength, and we should > avoid dealing with �content� concerns to the maximum extent > possible. We should be opening up new TLDs. I hope we will find a > way to achieve such a sound process in short order. > Rebecca Wanjiku, > journalist, > p.o box 33515, > Nairobi.00600 > Kenya. > > Tel. 254 720 318 925 > > blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Finding fabulous fares is fun. > Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites > > to find flight and hotel bargains. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > [email protected] > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/njeri.rionge%40igniteconsulti... > > > > =================================================== > Njeri Rionge > Chief Executive Officer > Ignite Consulting Limited > Eden Square 7th Floor > Chiromo Rd, Westlands > P. O. Box 15568 00100 GPO Nairobi, Kenya > T: (254 20) 3673250�9 > E: [email protected] > http://www.igniteconsulting.co.ke > _ > /Professional, Life Skills Coaching, Value Added Training on > Conformity and Compliance, > Business Management, Organizational Development and Facilitation. > / > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > [email protected] > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com
=== message truncated === --------------------------------- We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
Okay....policy formulation is a pretty complex process made even more complex when issues of cultural values etc are at stake and especially if there is room for all interests groups to express their stands/issues... This has become quite an emotive subject and I can bet you that ICANN will soon have to deal with more of these. thanks and best alice Alex Gakuru wrote:
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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>
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.
/Alex
*/alice <[email protected]>/* wrote:
Alex, am afraid then this would be an attempt to "impose all intolerances cumulatively on everyone" ICANN's criteria for consideration of TLD selection will constantly pit one culture against another and in a way this invites the view that creation of TLD's is based on a set of ideas rather than coordination of unique strings.
I am afraid this is the beginning of suppression of diversity and expression. ICANN should have approved and let public policy at the national level negotiate and regulate according to their norms
Alex Gakuru wrote: > Alice, > > Sorry I defer slightly on this, "In cases of conflict, public interest > is supreme", whether regarding internet, broadcasting, print, > advertising and all other media. To me, the same goes with ICANN. > > Maybe ICANN decision processes are the problem, it is the issue at hand, > but where would it be the highest best place to establish a precedent? > ICANN. > > I fear we could be ventilating to ICANN while this remains a test on > right > or wrong with ICANN in focus this time around? > > Next time will it not be, if it not always been, regulators over this > content > on TV, radio channels, print media, advertisements not internet domain > names policy. > > Principally, would endorsing this domain generate more "eager want" > essentially translating to advertising and popularising as now "ICANN > globally acceptable norms"? And In the process wooing vulnerable, > info-challenged (such as our rural 30 millions currrently unconnected) > and innocent kids who will end up trapped? > > .xxx is bad for Kenya's economy. Global annual profits from trafficked > forced labour is $32 billion (Sh2.4 trillion) with the Middle East, > North and sub-Saharan Africa generating $1.75 billion (Sh131 billion). > > To grasp the impact and our international perception, relate this with > global human trafficking which Kenya, unfortunately, has not had a > very good record. Although things have changed with media reports of > many coastal raids, in > 2004 were ranked on "Tier 2 watchlist" in this document > > �Kenya is a country of origin, destination, and transit for victims > trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. > Victims are trafficked from South Asian and East Asian countries and > the Middle East through Kenya to European destinations for sexual > exploitation. > Asian nationals, principally Indians, Bangladeshi, and Nepalese, are > trafficked into Kenya and coerced into bonded labor in the > construction and garment industries. Kenyan children are trafficked > internally from rural areas to urban centers and coastal areas into > involuntary servitude, including work as street vendors and day > laborers, and into prostitution. Women and children are trafficked > from Burundi and Rwanda to coastal areas in Kenya for sexual > exploitation in the growing sex tourism industry.� > So what's the big deal .xxx? That stuff is plenty already out there > will not > automagically disappear from current domains, if .xxx was agreed to, > maybe it would have even become more expensive to target users > anyway because domain name sponsors would expect a royalty fee? > > Needless to say this would also make it more lucrative for content filter > programs makers. > > Curiosity killed the cat. More interest would be created to access among > kids told never to go to these domains- (like in the Adam and Eve story). > > Who will be next after ICANN, advocates may ask for legit billboards, > specialised broadcasts channels and because they claim will be > responsible, they will ask all radio and TV owners to buy special > channels filters, as new channels get "licensed"? Filters would be > a very big additional cost to many users around the world. Content > filters selling programs is already quite lucrative business. > > /Alex > > */alice /* wrote: > > > Agree with you Njeri that ICANN's core mandate is technical > regulation > of the internet, however, the moment it made a decision on the dot > XXX, > a matter in my opinion that is ideologically loaded, it is moving > out of > technical regulation into the public policy sphere. > > > Reason why numerous countries, and the EU for example, raised > issues of > public policy principles for management of internet resources > during the > WSIS Tunis agenda. > > > As others have observed, the decision is indeed a symptom of > international policy malaise on developing globally acceptable > rules for > governing the internet in the interest of the public and these > contradictions are likely to recur. > > > > > > > Njeri Rionge wrote: > > > > Rebecca, I personally prefer to remain succinct. > > > > In addition to the reasons stated in the resolution, I vote no > for the > > following reasons. > > > > > > 1. that the ICM proposal does not take into account the > > global cultural issues and concerns that relate to the > > immediate introduction of this TLD onto the internet, > > 2. that the ICM proposal will not protect the relevant or > > interested community from the adult entertainment > > websites by a significant percentage > > 3. that the ICM proposal focuses on content management > > which is not in ICANN�s technical mandate > > 4. the ICM proposal conflicts with our recently consistent > > rebattle with ITU during the WSIS, which is still very > > fresh in our minds and the community, we need to be > > consistent with core mandate of ICANN > > > > > > In reference to the resolution, this can be accessed:- > > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-30mar07.htm > > > > Be reminded that the vote was 9 against and 5 for, and 1 > abstention. > > If you look at the trend from inception, this matter has even > received > > a for vote initially and therefore cannot be sighted my this > fact that > > the vote was based on morality and personal believes. This has > been a > > complex issue and will continue to be until we resolve some > > fundamental principles of structure and redefined objectives of the > > institution/corporation as a whole. > > > > Ps, this information was posted on the internet as well. > > > > > > Njeri, > > > > > > On 4/5/07 9:09 AM, "Rebecca Wanjiku" wrote: > > > > i thought we should expect reasons/explanations like this from > > ICANN representatives on the board, > > just a thought, > > read on > > > > > > *Why I Voted for .XXX > > * > > By *Susan Crawford* > > > > > > > > *The ICANN Board voted today 9-5, with Paul Twomey abstaining, to > > reject a proposal to open .xxx. This is my statement in connection > > with that vote. I found the resolution adopted by the Board > > (rejecting xxx) both weak and unprincipled. > > * > > I am troubled by the path the Board has followed on this issue > > since I joined the Board in December of 2005. I would like to make > > two points. First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it > > acts in an ad hoc fashion in response to political pressures. > > Second, ICANN should take itself seriously as a private governance > > institution with a limited mandate and should resist efforts by > > governments to veto what it does. > > > > *Role of the Board > > * > > This decision, whether to admit a particular non-confusing, legal > > string into the root, is put before the ICANN Board because (1) we > > purport to speak on behalf of the global internet community and > > (2) the U.S. Department of Commerce defers to the judgments of > > that community when deciding what to tell its contractor to add to > > the authoritative root zone file. > > > > As a Board, we cannot speak as *elected* representatives of the > > global internet community because we have not allowed elections > > for Board members. This application does not present any difficult > > technical questions, and even if it did we do not as a group claim > > to have special technical expertise. So this is not a technical > > stability and security question. It seems to me that the only > > plausible basis on which the Board can answer the question in the > > negative ("a group of people may *not* operate and use a lawful > > string of letters as a top level domain") is to say that the > > people affected by this decision have a broadly shared agreement > > that the admission of this string to the root would amount to > > unjustifiable wrongdoing. Otherwise, in the absence of technical > > considerations, the Board has no basis for rejecting this > application. > > > > Let me explain. The most fundamental value of the global internet > > community is that people who propose to use the internet protocols > > and infrastructures for otherwise lawful purposes, without > > threatening the operational stability or security of the internet, > > should be presumed to be entitled to do so. In a nutshell, > > �everything not prohibited is permitted.� This understanding, this > > value, has led directly to the striking success of the internet > > around the world. > > > > ICANN�s role in gTLD policy development is to seek to assess and > > articulate the broadly shared values of the internet community. We > > have very limited authority and we can only speak on behalf of > > that community. I am personally not aware that any global > > consensus against the creation of an .xxx domain exists. In the > > absence of such a prohibition, and given our mandate to create TLD > > competition, we have no authority to block the addition of this > > TLD to the root. > > > > It is very clear that we do not have a global shared set of values > > about content online, save for the global norm against child > > pornography. But the global internet community clearly *does* > > share the core value that no centralized authority should set > > itself up as the arbiter of what people may do together online, > > absent a demonstration that most of those affected by the proposed > > activity agree that it should be banned. > > > > *Process > > * > > More than three years ago, before I joined the Board, ICANN began > > a process for new sponsored top level domains. As I have said on > > many occasions, I think the idea of �sponsorship� is an empty one. > > *All* generic TLDs should be considered �sponsored� in that they > > should be able to create policies for themselves that are not > > dictated by ICANN. The only exceptions to this freedom for every > > TLD should be, of course, the (very few) global consensus policies > > that are created through the ICANN forum. This freedom is shared > > by the country code TLDs. > > > > Notwithstanding my personal views on the vacuity of the > > �sponsorship� idea, the fact is that ICANN evaluated the strength > > of the sponsorship of xxx (the relationship between the applicant > > and the �community� behind the TLD) and, in my view, concluded > > that this criteria had been met as of June 2005; ICANN then went > > on to negotiate specific contractual terms with the applicant. > > > > Since then, real and �astroturf� comments (filed comments claiming > > to be grassroots opposition that have actually been generated by > > organized campaigns) have come in to ICANN that reflect opposition > > to this application. I do not find these recent comments > > sufficient to warrant re-visiting the question of the > > �sponsorship� strength of this TLD which I personally believe to > > be closed. > > > > No applicant for any �sponsored� TLD could ever demonstrate > > unanimous, cheering approval for its application. We have no > > metric against which to measure this opposition, and thus we have > > no idea how significant it is. We should not be in the business of > > judging the level of market or community support for a new TLD > > before the fact. We will only get in the way of useful innovation > > if we take the view that every new TLD must prove itself to us > > before it can be added to the root. > > > > It seems to me that what is meant by �sponsorship� (a notion that > > I hope we abandon) is to show that there is enough interest in a > > particular TLD that it will be viable. We also have the idea that > > registrants should participate in (and be bound by) the creation > > of policies for a particular string. Both of these requirements > > have been met by this applicant. There is clearly enough interest > > (including more than 70,000 pre-registrations from 1,000 or more > > unique registrants who are members of the adult industry), and the > > applicant has undertaken to us that it will require adherence to > > its self-regulatory policies by all of its registrants. To the > > extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN > > should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD > > makes a valuable contribution to the namespace, I differ with > > them. I do not think ICANN is capable of making such a > > determination. Indeed, this argument is very much like those made > > by the pre-divestiture AT&T when it claimed that no �foreign > > attachments� to its network (like answering machines) should be > > allowed, in part because AT&T asserted there was no public demand > > for them. The rise of the internet was arguably made possible by > > allowing many �foreign attachments� to the network - called modems. > > > > We established a process for sTLDs some time ago. We have taken > > this applicant through this process. We now appear to be changing > > the process. We should not act in this fashion. > > > > *Politics > > * > > Discomfort with this application may have been sparked anew by (1) > > the letter from individual GAC members Janis Karklins and Sharil > > Tarmizi (to which Amb. Karklins has told us the GAC acceded as a > > whole by its silence), and (2) the letter from the Australian > > government. > > > > I am not at all opposed to receiving advice from the Government > > Advisory Committee. But the entire point of ICANN�s creation was > > to avoid the operation of chokepoint content control over the > > domain name system by individual or collective governments. The > > idea was that the US would serve as a good steward for other > > governmental concerns by staying in the background and overseeing > > ICANN�s activities, but not engaging in content-related control. > > Australia�s letter, and concerns expressed in the past by Brazil > > and other countries about xxx, are explicitly content-based and > > thus inappropriate, in my view. > > > > If, after creation of an xxx TLD, certain governments of the world > > want to ensure that their citizens do not see xxx content, it is > > within their prerogative as sovereigns to instruct internet access > > providers physically located within their territory to block such > > content. Also, if certain governments want to ensure that *all* > > adult content providers with a physical presence in their country > > register exclusively within xxx, that is their prerogative as > > well. (I note that such a requirement in the U.S. would violate > > the First Amendment to our Constitution.) But this content-related > > censorship should not be ICANN�s concern, and ICANN should not > > allow itself to be used as a private lever for government > > chokepoint content control by making up reasons to avoid the > > creation of such a TLD in the first place. To the extent there are > > public policy concerns with this TLD, they can be dealt with > > through local law. Registration in (or visitation of) domains in > > this TLD is purely voluntary. > > > > If ICANN were to base its decisions on the views of the Australian > > (or US, or Brazilian) government, ICANN would have compromised > > away its very reason for existence as a private non-governmental > > governance institution. > > > > *Conclusion > > * > > I continue to be dissatisfied with elements of the proposed xxx > > contract, including but not limited to the �rapid takedown� > > provision of Appendix S,1 which is manifestly designed to placate > > trademark owners and ignores the many due process concerns that > > have been expressed about the existing UDRP. I am confident that > > if I had a staff or enough time I could find many things to carp > > about in this draft contract. But I am certain that if I > > complained about these terms my concerns would be used to justify > > derailing this application for political reasons. I plan, > > therefore, to turn my attention to the new gTLD process that was > > promised for January 2007 (a promise that has not been kept) in > > hopes that we will someday have a standard contract and objective > > process that can help ICANN avoid engaging in unjustifiable ad hoc > > actions. We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the > > basis of their technical and financial strength, and we should > > avoid dealing with �content� concerns to the maximum extent > > possible. We should be opening up new TLDs. I hope we will find a > > way to achieve such a sound process in short order. > > Rebecca Wanjiku, > > journalist, > > p.o box 33515, > > Nairobi.00600 > > Kenya. > > > > Tel. 254 720 318 925 > > > > blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Finding fabulous fares is fun. > > Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites > > > > to find flight and hotel bargains. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > > kictanet mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at > > > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/njeri.rionge%40igniteconsulti... > > > > > > > > =================================================== > > Njeri Rionge > > Chief Executive Officer > > Ignite Consulting Limited > > Eden Square 7th Floor > > Chiromo Rd, Westlands > > P. O. Box 15568 00100 GPO Nairobi, Kenya > > T: (254 20) 3673250�9 > > E: [email protected] > > http://www.igniteconsulting.co.ke > > _ > > /Professional, Life Skills Coaching, Value Added Training on > > Conformity and Compliance, > > Business Management, Organizational Development and Facilitation. > > / > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > kictanet mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > [email protected] > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com
=== message truncated ===
------------------------------------------------------------------------ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
All, Even those known to know have changed there views on the subject several times during the process. Be reminded it is a complex affair that MUST go through its process to align its structure for future successes and this is not even guaranteed. Njeri, On 4/6/07 1:10 PM, "alice" <[email protected]> wrote:
Alex, am afraid then this would be an attempt to "impose all intolerances cumulatively on everyone" ICANN's criteria for consideration of TLD selection will constantly pit one culture against another and in a way this invites the view that creation of TLD's is based on a set of ideas rather than coordination of unique strings.
I am afraid this is the beginning of suppression of diversity and expression. ICANN should have approved and let public policy at the national level negotiate and regulate according to their norms
Alex Gakuru wrote:
Alice,
Sorry I defer slightly on this, "In cases of conflict, public interest is supreme", whether regarding internet, broadcasting, print, advertising and all other media. To me, the same goes with ICANN.
Maybe ICANN decision processes are the problem, it is the issue at hand, but where would it be the highest best place to establish a precedent? ICANN.
I fear we could be ventilating to ICANN while this remains a test on right or wrong with ICANN in focus this time around?
Next time will it not be, if it not always been, regulators over this content on TV, radio channels, print media, advertisements not internet domain names policy.
Principally, would endorsing this domain generate more "eager want" essentially translating to advertising and popularising as now "ICANN globally acceptable norms"? And In the process wooing vulnerable, info-challenged (such as our rural 30 millions currrently unconnected) and innocent kids who will end up trapped?
.xxx is bad for Kenya's economy. Global annual profits from trafficked forced labour is $32 billion (Sh2.4 trillion) with the Middle East, North and sub-Saharan Africa generating $1.75 billion (Sh131 billion).
To grasp the impact and our international perception, relate this with global human trafficking which Kenya, unfortunately, has not had a very good record. Although things have changed with media reports of many coastal raids, in 2004 were ranked on "Tier 2 watchlist" in this document <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/34158.pdf> ³Kenya is a country of origin, destination, and transit for victims trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. Victims are trafficked from South Asian and East Asian countries and the Middle East through Kenya to European destinations for sexual exploitation. Asian nationals, principally Indians, Bangladeshi, and Nepalese, are trafficked into Kenya and coerced into bonded labor in the construction and garment industries. Kenyan children are trafficked internally from rural areas to urban centers and coastal areas into involuntary servitude, including work as street vendors and day laborers, and into prostitution. Women and children are trafficked from Burundi and Rwanda to coastal areas in Kenya for sexual exploitation in the growing sex tourism industry.² So what's the big deal .xxx? That stuff is plenty already out there will not automagically disappear from current domains, if .xxx was agreed to, maybe it would have even become more expensive to target users anyway because domain name sponsors would expect a royalty fee?
Needless to say this would also make it more lucrative for content filter programs makers.
Curiosity killed the cat. More interest would be created to access among kids told never to go to these domains- (like in the Adam and Eve story).
Who will be next after ICANN, advocates may ask for legit billboards, specialised broadcasts channels and because they claim will be responsible, they will ask all radio and TV owners to buy special channels filters, as new channels get "licensed"? Filters would be a very big additional cost to many users around the world. Content filters selling programs is already quite lucrative business.
/Alex
*/alice <[email protected]>/* wrote:
Agree with you Njeri that ICANN's core mandate is technical regulation of the internet, however, the moment it made a decision on the dot XXX, a matter in my opinion that is ideologically loaded, it is moving out of technical regulation into the public policy sphere.
Reason why numerous countries, and the EU for example, raised issues of public policy principles for management of internet resources during the WSIS Tunis agenda.
As others have observed, the decision is indeed a symptom of international policy malaise on developing globally acceptable rules for governing the internet in the interest of the public and these contradictions are likely to recur.
Njeri Rionge wrote:
Rebecca, I personally prefer to remain succinct.
In addition to the reasons stated in the resolution, I vote no
for the
following reasons.
1. that the ICM proposal does not take into account the global cultural issues and concerns that relate to the immediate introduction of this TLD onto the internet, 2. that the ICM proposal will not protect the relevant or interested community from the adult entertainment websites by a significant percentage 3. that the ICM proposal focuses on content management which is not in ICANN¹s technical mandate 4. the ICM proposal conflicts with our recently consistent rebattle with ITU during the WSIS, which is still very fresh in our minds and the community, we need to be consistent with core mandate of ICANN
In reference to the resolution, this can be accessed:- http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-30mar07.htm
Be reminded that the vote was 9 against and 5 for, and 1 abstention. If you look at the trend from inception, this matter has even received a for vote initially and therefore cannot be sighted my this fact that the vote was based on morality and personal believes. This has been a complex issue and will continue to be until we resolve some fundamental principles of structure and redefined objectives of the institution/corporation as a whole.
Ps, this information was posted on the internet as well.
Njeri,
On 4/5/07 9:09 AM, "Rebecca Wanjiku" wrote:
i thought we should expect reasons/explanations like this from ICANN representatives on the board, just a thought, read on
*Why I Voted for .XXX * By *Susan Crawford*
*The ICANN Board voted today 9-5, with Paul Twomey abstaining, to reject a proposal to open .xxx. This is my statement in connection with that vote. I found the resolution adopted by the Board (rejecting xxx) both weak and unprincipled. * I am troubled by the path the Board has followed on this issue since I joined the Board in December of 2005. I would like to make two points. First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it acts in an ad hoc fashion in response to political pressures. Second, ICANN should take itself seriously as a private governance institution with a limited mandate and should resist efforts by governments to veto what it does.
*Role of the Board * This decision, whether to admit a particular non-confusing, legal string into the root, is put before the ICANN Board because (1) we purport to speak on behalf of the global internet community and (2) the U.S. Department of Commerce defers to the judgments of that community when deciding what to tell its contractor to add to the authoritative root zone file.
As a Board, we cannot speak as *elected* representatives of the global internet community because we have not allowed elections for Board members. This application does not present any difficult technical questions, and even if it did we do not as a group claim to have special technical expertise. So this is not a technical stability and security question. It seems to me that the only plausible basis on which the Board can answer the question in the negative ("a group of people may *not* operate and use a lawful string of letters as a top level domain") is to say that the people affected by this decision have a broadly shared agreement that the admission of this string to the root would amount to unjustifiable wrongdoing. Otherwise, in the absence of technical considerations, the Board has no basis for rejecting this application.
Let me explain. The most fundamental value of the global internet community is that people who propose to use the internet protocols and infrastructures for otherwise lawful purposes, without threatening the operational stability or security of the internet, should be presumed to be entitled to do so. In a nutshell, ³everything not prohibited is permitted.² This understanding, this value, has led directly to the striking success of the internet around the world.
ICANN¹s role in gTLD policy development is to seek to assess and articulate the broadly shared values of the internet community. We have very limited authority and we can only speak on behalf of that community. I am personally not aware that any global consensus against the creation of an .xxx domain exists. In the absence of such a prohibition, and given our mandate to create TLD competition, we have no authority to block the addition of this TLD to the root.
It is very clear that we do not have a global shared set of values about content online, save for the global norm against child pornography. But the global internet community clearly *does* share the core value that no centralized authority should set itself up as the arbiter of what people may do together online, absent a demonstration that most of those affected by the proposed activity agree that it should be banned.
*Process * More than three years ago, before I joined the Board, ICANN began a process for new sponsored top level domains. As I have said on many occasions, I think the idea of ³sponsorship² is an empty one. *All* generic TLDs should be considered ³sponsored² in that they should be able to create policies for themselves that are not dictated by ICANN. The only exceptions to this freedom for every TLD should be, of course, the (very few) global consensus policies that are created through the ICANN forum. This freedom is shared by the country code TLDs.
Notwithstanding my personal views on the vacuity of the ³sponsorship² idea, the fact is that ICANN evaluated the strength of the sponsorship of xxx (the relationship between the applicant and the ³community² behind the TLD) and, in my view, concluded that this criteria had been met as of June 2005; ICANN then went on to negotiate specific contractual terms with the applicant.
Since then, real and ³astroturf² comments (filed comments claiming to be grassroots opposition that have actually been generated by organized campaigns) have come in to ICANN that reflect opposition to this application. I do not find these recent comments sufficient to warrant re-visiting the question of the ³sponsorship² strength of this TLD which I personally believe to be closed.
No applicant for any ³sponsored² TLD could ever demonstrate unanimous, cheering approval for its application. We have no metric against which to measure this opposition, and thus we have no idea how significant it is. We should not be in the business of judging the level of market or community support for a new TLD before the fact. We will only get in the way of useful innovation if we take the view that every new TLD must prove itself to us before it can be added to the root.
It seems to me that what is meant by ³sponsorship² (a notion that I hope we abandon) is to show that there is enough interest in a particular TLD that it will be viable. We also have the idea that registrants should participate in (and be bound by) the creation of policies for a particular string. Both of these requirements have been met by this applicant. There is clearly enough interest (including more than 70,000 pre-registrations from 1,000 or more unique registrants who are members of the adult industry), and the applicant has undertaken to us that it will require adherence to its self-regulatory policies by all of its registrants. To the extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD makes a valuable contribution to the namespace, I differ with them. I do not think ICANN is capable of making such a determination. Indeed, this argument is very much like those made by the pre-divestiture AT&T when it claimed that no ³foreign attachments² to its network (like answering machines) should be allowed, in part because AT&T asserted there was no public demand for them. The rise of the internet was arguably made possible by allowing many ³foreign attachments² to the network - called modems.
We established a process for sTLDs some time ago. We have taken this applicant through this process. We now appear to be changing the process. We should not act in this fashion.
*Politics * Discomfort with this application may have been sparked anew by (1) the letter from individual GAC members Janis Karklins and Sharil Tarmizi (to which Amb. Karklins has told us the GAC acceded as a whole by its silence), and (2) the letter from the Australian government.
I am not at all opposed to receiving advice from the Government Advisory Committee. But the entire point of ICANN¹s creation was to avoid the operation of chokepoint content control over the domain name system by individual or collective governments. The idea was that the US would serve as a good steward for other governmental concerns by staying in the background and overseeing ICANN¹s activities, but not engaging in content-related control. Australia¹s letter, and concerns expressed in the past by Brazil and other countries about xxx, are explicitly content-based and thus inappropriate, in my view.
If, after creation of an xxx TLD, certain governments of the world want to ensure that their citizens do not see xxx content, it is within their prerogative as sovereigns to instruct internet access providers physically located within their territory to block such content. Also, if certain governments want to ensure that *all* adult content providers with a physical presence in their country register exclusively within xxx, that is their prerogative as well. (I note that such a requirement in the U.S. would violate the First Amendment to our Constitution.) But this content-related censorship should not be ICANN¹s concern, and ICANN should not allow itself to be used as a private lever for government chokepoint content control by making up reasons to avoid the creation of such a TLD in the first place. To the extent there are public policy concerns with this TLD, they can be dealt with through local law. Registration in (or visitation of) domains in this TLD is purely voluntary.
If ICANN were to base its decisions on the views of the Australian (or US, or Brazilian) government, ICANN would have compromised away its very reason for existence as a private non-governmental governance institution.
*Conclusion * I continue to be dissatisfied with elements of the proposed xxx contract, including but not limited to the ³rapid takedown² provision of Appendix S,1 which is manifestly designed to placate trademark owners and ignores the many due process concerns that have been expressed about the existing UDRP. I am confident that if I had a staff or enough time I could find many things to carp about in this draft contract. But I am certain that if I complained about these terms my concerns would be used to justify derailing this application for political reasons. I plan, therefore, to turn my attention to the new gTLD process that was promised for January 2007 (a promise that has not been kept) in hopes that we will someday have a standard contract and objective process that can help ICANN avoid engaging in unjustifiable ad hoc actions. We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the basis of their technical and financial strength, and we should avoid dealing with ³content² concerns to the maximum extent possible. We should be opening up new TLDs. I hope we will find a way to achieve such a sound process in short order. Rebecca Wanjiku, journalist, p.o box 33515, Nairobi.00600 Kenya.
Tel. 254 720 318 925
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites
to find flight and hotel bargains.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/njeri.rionge%40igniteconsulti... g.co.ke
=================================================== Njeri Rionge Chief Executive Officer Ignite Consulting Limited Eden Square 7th Floor Chiromo Rd, Westlands P. O. Box 15568 00100 GPO Nairobi, Kenya T: (254 20) 36732509 E: [email protected] http://www.igniteconsulting.co.ke _ /Professional, Life Skills Coaching, Value Added Training on Conformity and Compliance, Business Management, Organizational Development and Facilitation. /
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars <http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE0OGRsc3F2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BH NlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3Y2Fycw--> at Yahoo! Autos. <http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE0OGRsc3F2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BH NlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3Y2Fycw-->
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/njeri.rionge%40igniteconsulti... .co.ke
=================================================== Njeri Rionge Chief Executive Officer Ignite Consulting Limited Eden Square 7th Floor Chiromo Rd, Westlands P. O. Box 15568 00100 GPO Nairobi, Kenya T: (254 20) 36732509 E: [email protected] http://www.igniteconsulting.co.ke Professional & Life Skills Coaching, Quality Management Systems, Health Safety, Food Safety & Environment Management Systems, Lead Auditor Courses that are Internationally Accredited by IRCA, Training on Conformity and Compliance based on International Standards (ISO), Business Management, Organizational Development, Capacity Building and Strategy Facilitation and Development. IT Solutions:- eDocuments Management, Data Management, Disaster Preparedness and Hosting and Management Services for all your IT needs. Services delivered to you by Ignite Technologies an Ignite Consulting Division focusing on Systems Integration.
I believe my previous response, responds to this one too.. This is a complex affair and they are many issues of contention that MUST be addressed first and the .XXX process was not the answer nor the solution. That said, the issue of a broken process negates the possibility of due process and debate in reference to the past. We must learn from the past and focus on the future... This is already a work in progress My two cents.... Njeri, On 4/5/07 9:05 PM, "alice" <[email protected]> wrote:
Agree with you Njeri that ICANN's core mandate is technical regulation of the internet, however, the moment it made a decision on the dot XXX, a matter in my opinion that is ideologically loaded, it is moving out of technical regulation into the public policy sphere.
Reason why numerous countries, and the EU for example, raised issues of public policy principles for management of internet resources during the WSIS Tunis agenda.
As others have observed, the decision is indeed a symptom of international policy malaise on developing globally acceptable rules for governing the internet in the interest of the public and these contradictions are likely to recur.
Njeri Rionge wrote:
Rebecca, I personally prefer to remain succinct.
In addition to the reasons stated in the resolution, I vote no for the following reasons.
1. that the ICM proposal does not take into account the global cultural issues and concerns that relate to the immediate introduction of this TLD onto the internet, 2. that the ICM proposal will not protect the relevant or interested community from the adult entertainment websites by a significant percentage 3. that the ICM proposal focuses on content management which is not in ICANN¹s technical mandate 4. the ICM proposal conflicts with our recently consistent rebattle with ITU during the WSIS, which is still very fresh in our minds and the community, we need to be consistent with core mandate of ICANN
In reference to the resolution, this can be accessed:- http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-30mar07.htm
Be reminded that the vote was 9 against and 5 for, and 1 abstention. If you look at the trend from inception, this matter has even received a for vote initially and therefore cannot be sighted my this fact that the vote was based on morality and personal believes. This has been a complex issue and will continue to be until we resolve some fundamental principles of structure and redefined objectives of the institution/corporation as a whole.
Ps, this information was posted on the internet as well.
Njeri,
On 4/5/07 9:09 AM, "Rebecca Wanjiku" <[email protected]> wrote:
i thought we should expect reasons/explanations like this from ICANN representatives on the board, just a thought, read on
*Why I Voted for .XXX * By *Susan Crawford* <http://www.circleid.com/member/home/738/> <http://www.circleid.com/posts/why_i_voted_for_xxx/#comments> <http://www.circleid.com/member/tellafriend/1625/>
*The ICANN Board voted today 9-5, with Paul Twomey abstaining, to reject a proposal to open .xxx. This is my statement in connection with that vote. I found the resolution adopted by the Board (rejecting xxx) both weak and unprincipled. * I am troubled by the path the Board has followed on this issue since I joined the Board in December of 2005. I would like to make two points. First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it acts in an ad hoc fashion in response to political pressures. Second, ICANN should take itself seriously as a private governance institution with a limited mandate and should resist efforts by governments to veto what it does.
*Role of the Board * This decision, whether to admit a particular non-confusing, legal string into the root, is put before the ICANN Board because (1) we purport to speak on behalf of the global internet community and (2) the U.S. Department of Commerce defers to the judgments of that community when deciding what to tell its contractor to add to the authoritative root zone file.
As a Board, we cannot speak as *elected* representatives of the global internet community because we have not allowed elections for Board members. This application does not present any difficult technical questions, and even if it did we do not as a group claim to have special technical expertise. So this is not a technical stability and security question. It seems to me that the only plausible basis on which the Board can answer the question in the negative ("a group of people may *not* operate and use a lawful string of letters as a top level domain") is to say that the people affected by this decision have a broadly shared agreement that the admission of this string to the root would amount to unjustifiable wrongdoing. Otherwise, in the absence of technical considerations, the Board has no basis for rejecting this application.
Let me explain. The most fundamental value of the global internet community is that people who propose to use the internet protocols and infrastructures for otherwise lawful purposes, without threatening the operational stability or security of the internet, should be presumed to be entitled to do so. In a nutshell, ³everything not prohibited is permitted.² This understanding, this value, has led directly to the striking success of the internet around the world.
ICANN¹s role in gTLD policy development is to seek to assess and articulate the broadly shared values of the internet community. We have very limited authority and we can only speak on behalf of that community. I am personally not aware that any global consensus against the creation of an .xxx domain exists. In the absence of such a prohibition, and given our mandate to create TLD competition, we have no authority to block the addition of this TLD to the root.
It is very clear that we do not have a global shared set of values about content online, save for the global norm against child pornography. But the global internet community clearly *does* share the core value that no centralized authority should set itself up as the arbiter of what people may do together online, absent a demonstration that most of those affected by the proposed activity agree that it should be banned.
*Process * More than three years ago, before I joined the Board, ICANN began a process for new sponsored top level domains. As I have said on many occasions, I think the idea of ³sponsorship² is an empty one. *All* generic TLDs should be considered ³sponsored² in that they should be able to create policies for themselves that are not dictated by ICANN. The only exceptions to this freedom for every TLD should be, of course, the (very few) global consensus policies that are created through the ICANN forum. This freedom is shared by the country code TLDs.
Notwithstanding my personal views on the vacuity of the ³sponsorship² idea, the fact is that ICANN evaluated the strength of the sponsorship of xxx (the relationship between the applicant and the ³community² behind the TLD) and, in my view, concluded that this criteria had been met as of June 2005; ICANN then went on to negotiate specific contractual terms with the applicant.
Since then, real and ³astroturf² comments (filed comments claiming to be grassroots opposition that have actually been generated by organized campaigns) have come in to ICANN that reflect opposition to this application. I do not find these recent comments sufficient to warrant re-visiting the question of the ³sponsorship² strength of this TLD which I personally believe to be closed.
No applicant for any ³sponsored² TLD could ever demonstrate unanimous, cheering approval for its application. We have no metric against which to measure this opposition, and thus we have no idea how significant it is. We should not be in the business of judging the level of market or community support for a new TLD before the fact. We will only get in the way of useful innovation if we take the view that every new TLD must prove itself to us before it can be added to the root.
It seems to me that what is meant by ³sponsorship² (a notion that I hope we abandon) is to show that there is enough interest in a particular TLD that it will be viable. We also have the idea that registrants should participate in (and be bound by) the creation of policies for a particular string. Both of these requirements have been met by this applicant. There is clearly enough interest (including more than 70,000 pre-registrations from 1,000 or more unique registrants who are members of the adult industry), and the applicant has undertaken to us that it will require adherence to its self-regulatory policies by all of its registrants. To the extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD makes a valuable contribution to the namespace, I differ with them. I do not think ICANN is capable of making such a determination. Indeed, this argument is very much like those made by the pre-divestiture AT&T when it claimed that no ³foreign attachments² to its network (like answering machines) should be allowed, in part because AT&T asserted there was no public demand for them. The rise of the internet was arguably made possible by allowing many ³foreign attachments² to the network - called modems.
We established a process for sTLDs some time ago. We have taken this applicant through this process. We now appear to be changing the process. We should not act in this fashion.
*Politics * Discomfort with this application may have been sparked anew by (1) the letter from individual GAC members Janis Karklins and Sharil Tarmizi (to which Amb. Karklins has told us the GAC acceded as a whole by its silence), and (2) the letter from the Australian government.
I am not at all opposed to receiving advice from the Government Advisory Committee. But the entire point of ICANN¹s creation was to avoid the operation of chokepoint content control over the domain name system by individual or collective governments. The idea was that the US would serve as a good steward for other governmental concerns by staying in the background and overseeing ICANN¹s activities, but not engaging in content-related control. Australia¹s letter, and concerns expressed in the past by Brazil and other countries about xxx, are explicitly content-based and thus inappropriate, in my view.
If, after creation of an xxx TLD, certain governments of the world want to ensure that their citizens do not see xxx content, it is within their prerogative as sovereigns to instruct internet access providers physically located within their territory to block such content. Also, if certain governments want to ensure that *all* adult content providers with a physical presence in their country register exclusively within xxx, that is their prerogative as well. (I note that such a requirement in the U.S. would violate the First Amendment to our Constitution.) But this content-related censorship should not be ICANN¹s concern, and ICANN should not allow itself to be used as a private lever for government chokepoint content control by making up reasons to avoid the creation of such a TLD in the first place. To the extent there are public policy concerns with this TLD, they can be dealt with through local law. Registration in (or visitation of) domains in this TLD is purely voluntary.
If ICANN were to base its decisions on the views of the Australian (or US, or Brazilian) government, ICANN would have compromised away its very reason for existence as a private non-governmental governance institution.
*Conclusion * I continue to be dissatisfied with elements of the proposed xxx contract, including but not limited to the ³rapid takedown² provision of Appendix S,1 which is manifestly designed to placate trademark owners and ignores the many due process concerns that have been expressed about the existing UDRP. I am confident that if I had a staff or enough time I could find many things to carp about in this draft contract. But I am certain that if I complained about these terms my concerns would be used to justify derailing this application for political reasons. I plan, therefore, to turn my attention to the new gTLD process that was promised for January 2007 (a promise that has not been kept) in hopes that we will someday have a standard contract and objective process that can help ICANN avoid engaging in unjustifiable ad hoc actions. We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the basis of their technical and financial strength, and we should avoid dealing with ³content² concerns to the maximum extent possible. We should be opening up new TLDs. I hope we will find a way to achieve such a sound process in short order. Rebecca Wanjiku, journalist, p.o box 33515, Nairobi.00600 Kenya.
Tel. 254 720 318 925
blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites
<http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097;_ylc=X3oDMTFtNW45amVpBF9TA zk3NDA3NTg5BF9zAzI3MTk0ODEEcG9zAzEEc2VjA21haWx0YWdsaW5lBHNsawNxMS0wNw--> to find flight and hotel bargains. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at
http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/njeri.rionge%40igniteconsulti... g.co.ke
=================================================== Njeri Rionge Chief Executive Officer Ignite Consulting Limited Eden Square 7th Floor Chiromo Rd, Westlands P. O. Box 15568 00100 GPO Nairobi, Kenya T: (254 20) 36732509 E: [email protected] http://www.igniteconsulting.co.ke _ /Professional, Life Skills Coaching, Value Added Training on Conformity and Compliance, Business Management, Organizational Development and Facilitation. /
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/njeri.rionge%40igniteconsulti... .co.ke
=================================================== Njeri Rionge Chief Executive Officer Ignite Consulting Limited Eden Square 7th Floor Chiromo Rd, Westlands P. O. Box 15568 00100 GPO Nairobi, Kenya T: (254 20) 36732509 E: [email protected] http://www.igniteconsulting.co.ke Professional & Life Skills Coaching, Quality Management Systems, Health Safety, Food Safety & Environment Management Systems, Lead Auditor Courses that are Internationally Accredited by IRCA, Training on Conformity and Compliance based on International Standards (ISO), Business Management, Organizational Development, Capacity Building and Strategy Facilitation and Development. IT Solutions:- eDocuments Management, Data Management, Disaster Preparedness and Hosting and Management Services for all your IT needs. Services delivered to you by Ignite Technologies an Ignite Consulting Division focusing on Systems Integration.
participants (4)
-
Alex Gakuru -
alice -
Njeri Rionge -
Rebecca Wanjiku