[Attention Esther Dyson] to:Re: [IFWP] PICS and domain names
Esther and all, In this, we completely agree. ICANN should not be involved in the rating or filtering business. However this makes me amongst others why the various DNSO mailing lists are involved in filtering of various sorts and utilizing several methods? Any insight on that Esther? As you recall I phoned you about some of this problem with respect to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list... Esther Dyson wrote: FWIW, the first thing I said when I stood up was that I was speaking for myself and not for ICANN, since ICANN is not and should not be involved in the rating or filtering business. Esther Dyson At 09:30 am 09/10/1999 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: 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. -- Mark C. Langston LATEST: ICANN refuses Let your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to consider application for http://www.idno.org Systems AdminConstituency status from organized http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA individual domain name owners http://www.dnso.org Esther DysonAlways make new mistakes! chairman, EDventure Holdings interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names Numbers [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 (212) 924-8800 1 (212) 924-0240 fax 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor) New York, NY 10011 USA http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age" Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Re: [IFWP] PICS and domain names
I found Esther's written critique of content "self-regulation," as distributed on Farber's list, to be wonderfully on target--and a great relief. Esther Dyson wrote: FWIW, the first thing I said when I stood up was that I was speaking for myself and not for ICANN, since ICANN is not and should not be involved in the rating or filtering business. Esther Dyson At 09:30 am 09/10/1999 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: 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: -- m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
Re: [IFWP] PICS and domain names
Milton and all, I agree with you Milton. Unfortunately I have great reservations as to it sincerity given the already well know actions that the DNSO and the ICANN has taken in filtering, which several on this an other lists have subjected to just recently on the part of ICANN and the DNSO via Robert Shaw by the use of ORBS.ORG and the still selective filtering of folks from the [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing lists that are still ongoing... Milton Mueller wrote: I found Esther's written critique of content "self-regulation," as distributed on Farber's list, to be wonderfully on target--and a great relief. Esther Dyson wrote: FWIW, the first thing I said when I stood up was that I was speaking for myself and not for ICANN, since ICANN is not and should not be involved in the rating or filtering business. Esther Dyson At 09:30 am 09/10/1999 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: 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: -- m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Re: [IFWP] PICS and domain names
let's hope she is telling the truth. I for one don't believe that she is. I found Esther's written critique of content "self-regulation," as distributed on Farber's list, to be wonderfully on target--and a great relief. Esther Dyson wrote: FWIW, the first thing I said when I stood up was that I was speaking for myself and not for ICANN, since ICANN is not and should not be involved in the rating or filtering business. Esther Dyson At 09:30 am 09/10/1999 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: 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: -- m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/ The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone fax) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NEW - Incompetence or Duplicity? ICANN and it Allies' Stealth Agenda http://cookreport.com/isoccontrol.shtml
Re: [IFWP] PICS and domain names
FWIW, the first thing I said when I stood up was that I was speaking for myself and not for ICANN, since ICANN is not and should not be involved in the rating or filtering business. Esther Dyson At 09:30 am 09/10/1999 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: 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. -- Mark C. Langston LATEST: ICANN refuses Let your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to consider application for http://www.idno.org Systems AdminConstituency status from organized http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA individual domain name owners http://www.dnso.org Esther DysonAlways make new mistakes! chairman, EDventure Holdings interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names Numbers [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 (212) 924-8800 1 (212) 924-0240 fax 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor) New York, NY 10011 USA http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
[IFWP] PICS and domain names
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. -- Mark C. LangstonLATEST: ICANN refuses Let your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to consider application for http://www.idno.org Systems AdminConstituency status from organized http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA individual domain name owners http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] PICS and domain names
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.)
Re: [IFWP] PICS and domain names
Mikki and all, I have wondered when ICANN and was going to get around the the "Content" issue with respect to DN's and their related information that they contain. As I recall we had some lengthy discussion about this some time ago now. I also have wondered what "Excuse" ICANN was going to use to "Make the net safe for e-commerce". I can only suspect that this means no more porno sites or sexually related sites on the net. That is a dam shame. But I guess this would also include ladies lingerie a no-no as well. So that means Esther won't have a place to shop online for her designer Sup-hose! ;) Mikki Barry wrote: 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.) Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
[IFWP] Looks to me like a likely scenario should icann succeed Re:[IFWP] PICS and domain names
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.) The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone fax) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NEW - Incompetence or Duplicity? ICANN and it Allies' Stealth Agenda http://cookreport.com/isoccontrol.shtml
