>Since Esther's at the global meeting for establishing mandatory net
>content ratings, and seems to be chafing a bit over it, I'd like to
>point something out:
>
>Domain names would probably have to be rated as well.
>Since Esther *is* at this conference, and is the de facto face of ICANN,
>shouldn't someone speak as an official representative of ICANN on these
>issues?
>
>I certainly don't want the enforcement of ratings on any content on
>the net, and I am certain I don't want it enforced based on domain names.
>
>Let's face it: The only reason anyone would want a global mandatory
>rating system is to enact filtering based on those ratings.
>
>If ICANN allows this to occur (and they might -- quite a bit of the money
>behind ICANN is also propping up this ratings effort), they will be in
>a position to become the arbiters of content on the Net.
>
>Since WG-C is concerned with the introduction of new gTLDs, we should be
>very wary of this effort. One could easily imagine a push to classify
>content based on gTLD. If you think .com's diluted and confusing now,
>you just wait until companies are told they must use a particular gTLD
>for a particular type of content. Everywhere you turn, there will be
>confusing, misleading, and/or meaningless .com entries, all in an effort
>to avoid the gTLDs created specifically to be filtered out.
This cannot be overstated. Content restrictions and "copyright"
violations will likely be the new vehicles for "making the net safe
for e-commerce." Look at the make up of the Intellectual Property
Constituency and the demands that copyright and other intellectual
property rights be included in domain name issues. (How copyright
can be included in domain name issues and individual domain name
holders excluded is beyond me.)
