[IP] Domain "Ghettoization" and History Repeating Itself
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 4, 2005 7:28:34 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: lauren@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Domain "Ghettoization" and History Repeating Itself
Dave,
Let's be clear about this. The decisions being made now regarding
"controversial" TLDs (Top-Level Domains) have the potential of
long-term impacts that could affect people's fundamental access to
all manner of information for many years to come. The Internet/Web
are rapidly becoming basic utilities, and our decisions now will
affect many crucial aspects of people's lives both online and
offline.
As others have pointed out, the controversy over the ex-ex-ex TLD is
but a single example of a much broader set of content categorization
and control problems -- nor is it new.
In a PFIR paper written over four years ago ("Top-Level Domain
'Ghettoization' Proposals"
- http://www.pfir.org/statements/ghetto-domains ) I referred to
domains within proposed TLDs such as dot-kids and dot-ex-ex-ex as
"ghetto domains" -- an emotionally loaded yet accurate and
descriptive term for what are ultimately content control efforts.
While it is certainly true that ICANN has created an unnecessary and
wasteful scarcity in TLDs, it is not clear that even the creation of
vast numbers of TLDs would help to avoid the censorship and
information access problems with which we are about to grapple in
fundamental ways. It's not even a sure bet that the purely economic
issues surrounding conflicting domain names would be solved by the
creation of many TLDs, since as TLDs proliferate it is likely that
the perceived value and desirability of the most memorable and
distinct "top-banana" TLD -- dot-com -- will actually be enhanced.
The presence of TLDs such as ex-ex-ex *will* lead to demands that
their domains be subject to forced population by all manner of
"undesirable" content (sex today, critical speech tomorrow?), with
attendant restrictions both on who accesses them, and on the level of
identification required for such access. How courts will ultimately
rule on the resulting litigation, given the current political
climate, is at the very least problematic -- certainly not something
we should be assuming will always come down on the side of basic
freedoms.
We are all sitting on the cusp between the old physical and new
virtual worlds of information. Domain names and ex-ex-ex are only
the beginning. Despite all of our high-tech, some basic truths
remain unchanged. Control over the access to information, whether on
scrolls, in books, or flashing onto computer screens, is power. And
those persons and organizations who would restrict such access are
always the first to realize and manipulate this fact -- to the
detriment of society at large. This has been true all throughout
human history, and our fancy machines and networks have not made us
immune to the same dark traps.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@xxxxxxxx or lauren@xxxxxxxxxx or lauren@xxxxxxxx
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, EEPI
- Electronic Entertainment Policy Initiative - http://www.eepi.org
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/