Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] .BZH TLD Charter

discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] .BZH TLD Charter


Chronological Thread 
  • From: "teamcoltra AT gmail.com" <teamcoltra AT gmail.com>
  • To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] .BZH TLD Charter
  • Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:37:49 +0000
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=KJ5D19l7j34QXtdv9W8E3KuT/b27PLu7N/bQxqFIEJvKISE4ArVkF4AexI6tBinjJX NusQ0JPfPyAGNznxXf0tIofu7vMWPrg/IyhppiY8NQBwtYEoxnGNV1SrAtbmMlOJx4aI Bo3S1C5IWYSyFMnni0jnpmWyZjqDi5BStOkZg=
  • List-archive: <http://lists.darkdna.net/pipermail/discuss>
  • List-id: <discuss.lists.opennicproject.org>

Exactly... I don't feel that protecting a tld against racism is within the ideals of opennic. Free speech is always free speech.

sent from my mobile

On 2011-02-26 3:59 PM, "Cédric" <origin AT killy.net> wrote:
> Our only goal with these limitations (netiquette, non-commercial) was to protect the .BZH from any kind of racism, profit-use, and so on ... but, it's just like all the charters : it's a sort of guideline, not a law with the associated control you could imagine.
>
> It never was our intention to artificially limit the use of the .BZH. So if you think theses limitations can bring some kind of "censorship", "stylish guide", or "only politically correct sites" (sorry for the word-to-word translate from the french, hope this is understandable), we can remove them. As I already said before, no problem for us.
>
> Cédric
>
> Le 27 févr. 2011 à 00:19, Jeff Taylor a écrit :
>
>> I don't see where you are reading any rules regarding ethics? The way I read his original charter, it sounds like they are focusing on discussion that relates to a particular culture and/or region.
>>
>> As for the ads and donation buttons... to me this is just trying to limit sites that are *intentionally* for-profit. I agree it could use some clarification to avoid future disagreements, but it doesn't sound like he is trying to limit donations to a website that are funding either the site hosting or a cause that the site is promoting. Maybe Cedric can provide more clarification on this, and we can help suggest rules that are more specific?
>>
>



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page