Re: [ga] Outcome of discussion on string checks

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Exactly right about the xxx TLD. The real funny thing is that people think
it will actuall increase or decrease porn on the net in some way. It will do
neither.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
"icann board address" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Outcome of discussion on string checks


> Chuck and all,
>
>   As far as I know, 'public policy' does not trump freedom or
> speach or expression.  Maybe I an wrong here???  Besides
> this, who's 'public policy' and what defined 'public policy'
> was Bruce referring to?  I see nothing wrong in any way
> with .xxx being entered into the root.
>
> Gomes, Chuck 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
> > >
> > >
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obediance of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>    Abraham Lincoln
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
> E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  Registered Email addr with the USPS
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.2/442 - Release Date: 9/8/06
>
>