Discuss mailing list

[<me AT travismccrea.com>]

Seriously guys... it's not censorship... its "restriction for the usage of a 
TLD". Get it right! ;)

Common sense has NO GROUNDS in a legally binding document especially one that 
a person uses for their branding. If I get a .box 
domain, I want to know that it is not going to be taken down due to some 
difference in "common sense" which by reading your writing we 
CERTAINLY have a different opinion on what "common sense" is. 

Rules must be well defined and upheld as directly stated. Free speech isn't 
supposed to be "free speech... when everyone likes it" or 
"free speech... when it makes sense". You are now stating that other groups 
should be categorized into their own TLDs, yet you claim 
that this is going to be a general purpose domain. Which is it?

Also your definition of pornograhy is scary too... anything that causes 
sexual stimulation? :( I wont be able to post any pictures of 
myself because women swoon at the mere SIGHT of me. lol and you include TEXT 
in the definition of pornograhy? There is no other words 
for not allowing erotic stories other than censorship. That takes things 
further than even the United States who wound up losing it's 
case against nambla for their Man/Boy fetish stories... So if hosting 
peadophille stories in the United States is legal, then I am 
pretty sure that it should be acceptable anywhere. I am not a fan of Man/Boy 
fetishes... but I respect peoples right to create art and 
be able to share that through their freedom of speech.

Not only that, but you seem to have little desire to simply adopt a more 
standard charter and stop trying to enforce your charter 
which is highly scary. The fact that you will not back down in this makes me 
question your ability to manage a zone for your TLD 
anyway... At this point I am concerned that even if you change the charter 
back, that you will simply uphold these abusive policies 
regardless.

On Tue Aug 16 12:08 , Dominique Rehborn <dominique AT boxnet.eu> sent:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
>On 08/16/2011 05:45 PM, mike wrote:
>> On 11-08-16 10:41 AM, mike wrote: [clip]
>>> Prohibited contents and behavior
>> [/clip]
>> 
>> I guess in the larger picture, I have to ask myself, where does the 
>> responsibility for content censorship rest? If you where to ask me,
>> I would answer that it rests primarily with the observer, it's just
>> common sense, if it offends you, then don't look at it.
>would you dare to official include things like child porn and rape to
>your "don't look at it" statement?
>common sense is a good point since not all, but the overall majority has
>it, thus make law and rule based on what most people think is right, not
>the individual for himself.
>> 
>> However I don't want to digress into a whole philosophical discussion
>> on content censorship, but simply put, I'm not entirely convinced
>> that the NIC is the right place to be attempting to enforce content
>> censorship in the first place.
>i don't see why we shouldn't enforce policies. it's not censorship, it
>is a restriction for the usage of a TLD. this would for example mean you
>could do as a search engine requests/filter per TLD basis and know which
>contents you can expect or even not.
>again, if there is a huge market excluded, like porn, then there should
>be a .porn TLD.
>> 
>> --Mike _______________________________________________ discuss
>> mailing list discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org 
>> http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>- -- 
>Dominique Rehborn - dominique AT boxnet.eu
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
>iEYEARECAAYFAk5KlhEACgkQLPJ0YA88bG4wVwCcDpYBhJVv6yx//yKgH2ZUEp2s
>VhcAn2PMFq3e7/zq/su257wUp7Tz/DbT
>=Id8l
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
>http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss