Re: [hrpc] Censorship

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

I received clearance to post.

Le 22/03/2022 à 12:37, S Moonesamy a écrit :
> Hi Alexandre,
> At 09:58 AM 21-03-2022, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>> I did not know the .io problem - thanks!
>>
>> Can I suppose that the .io problem is not as accute because of the 
>> following reason: they are not at war.
>
> A change request should not be dependent on whether the entities 
> involved in the matter are at war.
>
>> Can I dare to think for a moment that it is not because there are 
>> many similar problems that they are not problems?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Is the potential solution to the problem of .io to remove .io and 
>> replace it by something else?  Or is the solution to give the .io to 
>> somebody else?
>
> I have not given any thought to a solution as it would most likely be 
> ill-informed.
>
>> As for IRTF and .su:
>>
>> Hmm, it might be that a research could be performed to understand the 
>> human rights implications of using a wrong (false) domain name .su - 
>> this '.su' represents nothing, a non existent object; but because 
>> nothing is really 'nothing', it can be said that it has been 
>> populated by some people who might want .su to actually mean 
>> something.  Maybe the space was free because of inattention and 
>> someoe occupied for cheap.  And there lies a problem.  The domain is 
>> in use out of lack of knowledge. A crispation already exists there in 
>> that use of .su.
>
> The ccTLD must have some value to the persons/organizations who 
> registered domain names under it or else they would not have 
> registered those domain names.


In the case of .su, there is no value, and there is pure outlaw, to 
register it to start with.  The .su stands for Soviet Union, an entity 
which no longer exists.

In the case of .io, there is certainly value to persons or organisations 
to register domain names under it.  I can think of a webserver in an 
island in the Indian Ocean, for example.  The island exists, the Indian 
Ocean exists, so there is value  in a potential website .io.


>
>> Maybe it is too much away from what IRTF might be interested in doing.
>>
>> In that case, I still wonder where else could this wrongness and 
>> possible evolution towards righteousness (migration, smooth for 
>> users, the humans) of .su could be discussed.  The idea would be to 
>> delete .su but migrate the websites to some other domain, such that 
>> the humans (end users) still access the content.
>
> There was some discussion within ICANN about what to do about that 
> ccTLD.  I haven't had time to keep track of the discussion.


ICANN... yet another organisation to look  at for this topic, in 
addition to ISOC Internet Policy and IRTF HRPC.

Please, which ICANN email list?  Is it public for all?


>
>> There are also aspects of the .fr (written in russian) domain that 
>> could be discussed as well about human rights and entitlements (.fr 
>> in russian text stands for Federation of Russia, but in latin 
>> characters it stands for France; this potential confusion, that 
>> nobody seems to do, might have some implications; it might be that 
>> new names should be proposed such as to balance a 'primacy' such as 
>> to not hurt anyone's feelings; were they to be called '.fra' for 
>> France and '.fedru' for Russia, or even '.rusfed' in their own 
>> language, then there would be no confusion problem; other solutions 
>> are possible; all these might have impacts on human rights.
>
> The above could be about universal acceptance or digital sovereignty.


Sounds reasonable.

But one would look at digital sovereignty to follow real-world 
sovereignty, to make the second follow the first.

For example, in the real world the sovereignty of France is not at 
competition to that of Federation of Russia.  That is the same in both 
languages.  So, in the digital world that should be expressed 
similarly.  But the current digital situation is that .fr wrtiten in 
Russian is different than .fr written in latin (I will not say which 
'primes' over another).  To improve the situation, there should be 
disambiguation.  In both ways of expressing the country name (digital 
and real), there should be no 'primacy'.   That disaminguation will show 
in great detail about how respect can be used, if I can say so (sorry if 
'respect' is too strong).


>
> At 02:42 AM 22-03-2022, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>
>> Today I received an incident report in some conenctivity.  It comes 
>> from an .io email address.  But the report has nothing to do with 
>> the Indian Ocean area.
>>
>> Not only there is disconnection at IP layer but there is 
>> disconnection in our semantic understanding of what .io should mean, 
>> in the first place.
>
> It's an identifier which people use.  The meaning depends on branding.


Branding?  Internet is more than just brands and commerce, I think?


The identifier that people use is a reflection of more real-world concepts.


Alex


>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy