[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ICANN-EU] We all are amused! --- Re: Rejected Post to the ISTF Participants List

nsdcnhc, icann-eu, istf, all, 

isn't all this filtering issue a little amusing?
mario


 At 11:54 AM +0200 10/20/00, chiari mario said:
>Hi,

Hello Mario,

>thanks for your nice reply.
>I understand the point. I'll find a way out.

I believe if you use dashes it'll go through. "s--t". :-) I didn't 
think of that until today.

>Still, may I forward our correspondance to other mailing list?
>I find it quite amusing.

<laughing> Yes please feel free to, I as well find it very amusing, 
on many levels. :-)

>Thanks
>Best Wishes
>mario

Glad to help.

- Sheryl

>
>At 11.11 19/10/00 -0700, you wrote:
>  >At 5:23 PM +0200 10/19/00, chiari mario said:
>  >>MAIL FORWARDED TO ISTF-PARTICIPANTS MAILING LIST OWNER
>  >>
>  >>Which message?
>  >>For which reasons?
>  >>
>  >>Please reply. Thanks mario
>  >>
>  >
>  >Hello Mario,
>  >
>  >Sorry for that, you received an automatic message from the server for
>  >this phrase:
>  >
>  >"Something like www.your-god-is-s**t.abc"
>  >
>  >With "s**t" being the text that triggered the profanity filter that
>  >we have in place on the list. You'll need to change the "s**t" for it
>  >to be able to go through.
>  >
>  >Again I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
>  >
>  >- Sheryl
>  >   ISOC List Administrator
>  >
>  >----- original message follows ----
>  >
>  >Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:41:51 +0200
>  >To: ISTF Discussion <istf-participants@lyris.isoc.org>
>  >From: chiari mario <chiari.hm@flashnet.it>
>  >Subject: Re: No Porn Wanted at .Kids
>  >
>  >Hi all,
>  >
>  >even if I have not real expertise in these matters, I would like to make a
>  >couple of comments. See below. Thanks
>  >
>  >
>  >At 21.12 08/10/00 -0400, you wrote:
>  >>parry,
>  >>
>  >>you put your finger on the problem - who has the authority...
>  >>
>  >>now, one COULD go a step further to have .kids mean almost nothing
>  >>but aaa.kids could be allocated to an orgazation called aaa that has
>  >>its own set of rules for kids - the requirement is that if you register
>  >>in .kids you have to be specific about the nature of content allowed.
>  >
>  >Not really. I think that neither ICANN nor Registry nor Registrar should
>  >monitor  the content of a web site (or a ftp archive, or ....)
>  >
>  >ICANN and/or Registry and/or Registrar should have -at most!- power on:
>  >
>  >1- DN strings. Something like www.your-god-is-s**t.abc could and should be
>  >forbidden by general ICANN rules. The same offensive statement within a
>  >site whose address is www.marios-opinion-on-religion.abc is a quite
>  >different matter.
>  >
>  >>I am NOT advocating this - just trying to see what the problems would
>  >>be. The organization registering groups under .kids would then have the
>  >>job of trying to police whether the actual content matches the
description
>  >>offered.
>  >
>  >If this is what somebody is suggesting, then it can't work. At most, a
>  >restricted gTLD may restrict registration to entities and/or  persons of a
>  >given category (Medical doctor, union, UNICEF sponsored groups, ecc.).
Most
>  >likely, in any of these case, ICANN should go back to well established
>  >criteria spelled out by others (Medical corporation or WHO, Int. Fed. of
>  >Unions, UNICEF)
>  >
>  >(Think to how IANA/ICANN have been deciding  which entities are 'nation',
>  >regarding ccTLD)
>  >
>  >ICANN and/or Registry and/or Registrar responsability should be limited to
>  >check that a registrant is the kind of entity according to that criteria.
>  >
>  >>If not, then the site would be de-listed. But imagine the >disputes
>  >>over whether the .kids registrar was fairly interpreting the content of
>  >>the aaa.kids site, etc.
>  >>
>  >>It sounds like a very complex proposition to me.
>  >
>  >Indeed, it would open to any kind of abuse.
>  >
>  >>
>  >>vint
>  >>
>  >>At 06:41 PM 10/8/2000 -0400, Parry Aftab wrote:
>  >>>Dave,
>  >>>
>  >>>I guess it comes down to the rules to qualify as a .kids site.
>  >>>org was originally designed for NGOs and non-profits, but are now being
>  >>>used by everyone who can't get the site name they want as a .com.
>  >>>If there is regulation over the issue, so that a .kid registered site
>has to
>  >>>pass certain scrutiny and guidelines, then we can police them and use
>  >>>whatever teeth the regulations have to do something more than send a
nasty
>  >>>e-mail to them.
>  >>>
>  >>>otherwise unscrupulous sites will use the zone to try and 
>increase traffic,
>  >>>Many adult sites don't care who accesses the site, as long as they get a
>  >>>hit.
>  >>>
>  >>>If the zone rules also give regulators or the registrar teeth to enforce
>  >>>guidelines, then it'll be helpful. Otherwsie, I'm afraid it won't be.
>  >>>
>  >>>do others have any thoughts on this?
>  >>>
>  >>>and who determines what is acceptable for the zone? US 
>standards? European?
>  >>>African? Christian? Muslim? Orthodox Jew?
>  >>>that will be a challenge. we ran into trouble trying to define child
>  >>>pornography worldwide...this has even less of a common ground than child
>  >>>porn standards...
>  >>>
>  >>>I'm for anything that works...
>  >>>thanks,
>  >>>Parry
>  >>>----- Original Message -----
>  >>>From: David St. Germain <David@StGermain.com>
>  >>>To: ISTF Discussion <istf-participants@lyris.isoc.org>
>  >>>Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 12:00 AM
>  >>>Subject: Re: No Porn Wanted at .Kids
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>>>  Parry,
>  >>>>
>  >>>>  You don't think there is any way that a .kids zone could be
>effective?  It
>  >>>>  seems to me (perhaps ignorantly) that if a specific zone was set
aside
>  >>>with
>  >>>>  special rules, that it would make the content much easier to track
>than if
>  >>>>  it were in the ubiquitous .com or .org zones.  I'm definately 
>no expert,
>  >>>but
>  >>>>  the logic seems sound to me.  I would be very interested in 
>hearing your
>  >>>>  opinion, as well as others with personal knowledge on this issue.
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>>  Dave.
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>>  ----- Original Message -----
>  >>>>  From: "Parry Aftab" <parry@aftab.com>
>  >>>>  To: "ISTF Discussion" <istf-participants@lyris.isoc.org>
>  >>>>  Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 5:36 PM
>  >>>>  Subject: Re: No Porn Wanted at .Kids
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>>  > Vany,
>  >>>>  > I work more in the area of online child protection (from online
>  >>>>  predators),
>  >>>>  > the fight against child pornography online and protection of
Internet
>  >>>>  users
>  >>>>  > from harassment and cyberstalking than just about anyone.
>  >>>>  >
>  >>>>  > I have always opposed the .sex, .xxx and the .kids zones,
thinking it
>  >>>>  won't
>  >>>>  > make any difference in the fight against the real dangers
online, and
>  >>>>  > stopping non-child appropriate content providers from using the new
>  >>>zones,
>  >>>>  > such as .kids will be almost impossible.
>  >>>>  >
>  >>>>  > But, if ISTF is willing to take on these issues, and my  arguments
>  >>>against
>  >>>>  > the new zones have been lost, I'll offer my expertise to anyone who
>  >>>wants
>  >>>>  to
>  >>>>  > try and tackle this issue. But one person's porn is another 
>one's art.
>  >>>>  That
>  >>>>  > issue needs to be resolved first.
>  >>>>  >
>  >>>>  > Note that the adult content providers have approached me to set
up a
>  >>>>  > dialogue on setting ethical standards and self-policing of certain
>adult
>  >>>>  > site issues online. The problem is that to the extent they clean up
>  >>>their
>  >>>>  > acts enough to be seen as responsible, they are also seen as too
>tame to
>  >>>>  > make the real money online. This is a Catch 22, in that the more
>  >>>>  responsible
>  >>>>  > they become, the less competitive they become, and therefore the
less
>  >>>>  > influential they become and the less effective the 
>self-regulation and
>  >>>>  > ethical standards become....
>  >>>>  >
>  >>>>  > Parry Aftab
>  >>>>  > cyberangels.org
>  >>>>  > wiredkids.org
>  >>>>  > familyguidebook.com
>  >>>>  > aftab.com
>  >>>>  >
>  >>>>  >
>  >>>>  > ----- Original Message -----
>  >>>>  > From: Vany Martinez <vany@sdnp.org.pa>
>  >>>>  > To: ISTF Discussion <istf-participants@lyris.isoc.org>
>  >>>>  > Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 3:06 PM
>  >>>>  > Subject: Re: No Porn Wanted at .Kids
>  >>>>  >
>  >>>>  >
>  >>>>  > > Hi to all:
>  >>>>  > >
>  >>>>  > > Between the proposals presented by the applicants of new gTLDs at
>  >>>ICANN,
>  >>>>  > > there is one in particular that worries me because is proposing
>  >>>>  > > two new gTLDs at the same time.  Such gTLDs are  .KIDS and .XXX
>  >>>>  > >
>  >>>>  > > I think very strongly that a body like ISTF can have a postion
>  >>>regarding
>  >>>>  > > such proposals, since ISTF deals with the societal issues of the
>  >>>>  Internet.
>  >>>>  > > Well, I think the time has come when also ISTF deal with this
>part of
>  >>>>  the
>  >>>>  > > Internet that, sadly has being used for all kind of 
>criminals to use
>  >>>>  > > childrens for obscures purposes.
>  >>>>  > >
>  >>>>  > > ICANN begins their period of public comments on proposals
presented
>  >>>for
>  >>>>  > new
>  >>>>  > > gTLDs, on October 9.
>  >>>>  > >
>  >>>>  > > I propose that in behalf of the ISTF, ISTF itself presents their
>  >>>>  position
>  >>>>  > > on such proposals.
>  >>>>  > >
>  >>>>  > > This is my proposal of such positions:
>  >>>>  > >
>  >>>>  > > 1.    In the event that gTLDs as .WOMEN and .KIDS (or 
>similar gTLDs)
>  >>>be
>  >>>>  > > adopted by ICANN as new gTLDs, that the manage of such gTLDs be
>  >>>granted
>  >>>>  to
>  >>>>  > > organizations and/or bussinesses of prooved engage on the 
>protection
>  >>>of
>  >>>>  > > human rights of women and children
>  >>>>  > >
>  >>>>  > > 2.  In the event that gTLDs a WOMEN and .KIDS (or similar
gTLDs) be
>  >>>>  > adopted
>  >>>>  > > by ICANN as new gTLDs, that the manage of such gTLDs might not be
>  >>>>  granted
>  >>>>  > > to organizations and/or bussiness that has proposed and/or
granted
>  >>>gTLDs
>  >>>>  > > engaged to pornography and/or gTLDs that can be used for the
>violation
>  >>>>  of
>  >>>>  > > the human rights of women and childrens
>  >>>>  > >
>  >>>>  > > 3.   In the event that gTLDs a WOMEN and .KIDS (or 
>similar gTLDs) be
>  >>>>  > > adopted by ICANN as new gTLDs, registration and/or use of 
>such gTLDs
>  >>>for
>  >>>>  > > purposes that violates the human rights of women and 
>childrens might
>  >>>be
>  >>>>  > > totally prohibited.
>  >>>>  > >
>  >>>>  > > Comments, more propoposal?
>  >>>>  > >
>  >>>>  > > Best Regards
>  >>>>  > > Vany
>  >>>>  > >
>  >>>>  > >
>  >>>>  > >
>  >>>>  > > Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
>  >>>>  > > IT Specialist
>  >>>>  > > Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
>  >>>>  > > e-mail:  vany@sdnp.org.pa
>  >>>>  > > Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
>  >>>>  > > Fax: (507) 230-3646

____________________________________________________________________________
  Sheryl Hiatt           ISOC List Administrator            shiatt@isoc.org