RE: [ga] Outcome of discussion on string checks

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

I agree with you that it would not be smart to repeat
what happened to .xxx (caving into to fanatical
right-wing pressure as exerted by the Bush
Administration).  I disagree with you regarding the
need to consult with the GAC on matters of public
policy.  

The role of meddling governments needs to be reduced,
not enhanced.  The .xxx situation well illustrates
what happens when governments get involved. The GNSO
should be acting in concert to keep governments out of
the process as much as possible.  They are a menace
and have demonstrated no ability to work in a timely
fashion.  We don't needs these laggards mucking up the
process for the rest of us.


--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Danny,
> 
> I think it is unfair to say that the new gTLD
> committee wants to stifle
> free speech and I think that there are a variety of
> opinions on the
> committee, but I think it is fair to say that most
> of us on the
> committee believe that it would not be smart to
> repeat what happened
> with .xxx.  Therefore, there was general agreement
> that the GAC should
> be consulted to see if there are 'public policy'
> concerns regarding new
> gTLDs that the GAC could provide advice on before
> the process starts.
> The types of strings Bruce listed are just a list of
> possible ones that
> relate to public policy.
> 
> Chuck Gomes
> VeriSign Information Services
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Danny Younger
> > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:53 AM
> > To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [ga] Outcome of discussion on string
> checks 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > 
> 


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