ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Outcome of discussion on string checks

  • To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [ga] Outcome of discussion on string checks
  • From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 07:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=uuN0Jekq2mdwYVzDcokeAS9+oLaedqaEGgmyvjsGsUb5yro8d+TEov6YUrxAyDq8VwNlahEi+ST9hDWbXOJWJWcwsFXOdwUCsMWPqQthCd6vvSbWeEdv+0fyAJJiTxSS+azU3woZf/BBZVaPcysinFblpjGruYNpTn6tOi9752w= ;
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reading through Bruce Tonkin's synopsis of the
Amsterdam discussions on string checks I noted one of
the "outcomes" that strikes me as problematic:

(d)     The string should not be <controversial,
political, cultural, religious terms> (develop text
related to public policy issues with GAC)

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00203.html

Why have we arrived at this conclusion?  Why can't a
particular string be controversial?  There are many
that wanted to have a .xxx domain on the Internet. 
Should this possibility continue to be denied just
because some view it as controversial?  Why have
members of the GNSO chosen to stifle free speech?  

Perhaps an Amsterdam participant can shed light on
this outcome for us?  


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>