...

...

Mueller@syr.edu 4/3/2007 10:59 AM >>> David: I was at the ICANN meeting and have been carefully following the .xxx controversy since the US government intervened in August 2005. Robin is correct that the .xxx rejection is fundamentally about ICANN trying to avoid, or actively discourage, controversial top level domain names. This was evident from the many conversations and comments at the meeting, especially among governments. No one familiar with the facts of

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:14:03 -0400 From: Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh@syr.edu> Reply-To: governance@lists.cpsr.org, "Lee McKnight" <LMcKnigh@syr.edu> To: <expression@ipjustice.org>, <governance@lists.cpsr.org>, <NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>, "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>, <goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au> As to 'what does this decision say ICANN is becoming?' - um, well, it looks and acts like an industry self-regulatory body, right? So, it is an industry regulator. Is anyone shocked? No, didn't think so. Some regulatory decisions are made on technical grounds, others on economic, process, and some yes for reasons of policy, which may reflect more or less community including political input. And affect speech on the Internet, free or otherwise. What is still lacking is an 'Administrative Procedures Act' for the Internet, in partidular to guide ICANN on how it should go about and what it may or may not consider in its decisionmaking, whether for gtld's or anything else. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile this case can deny that there are free expression issues. You also ignore the broader context -- this rejection happened at the same time as a new TLD approval process is being proposed that would openly and explicitly veto any proposals that generate opposition. Take a look at the transcripts of the public forum discussion, in which the Chair of the GNSO admits that objections from the Catholic church would have to be taken seriously if a TLD that mentioned "abortion" was proposed. You speak of "community support." ICM had 77,000 advance registrations, which exceed by a factor of 10-20 the number of hostile comments. That shows that it was viable economically and would be used. Of course there are adult online sites whose interests were threatened by a .xxx, and they opposed it. But any domain name proposal might generate opposition from someone in the world, for some reason. If ICANN turns TLD approval into a popularity contest then it is, de facto, a massive restriction of freedom of expression. Do you need community support to start a newspaper or a web site? You shouldn't need "community support" to be able to speak on the Internet. Whether .xxx would in fact "protect children" or uses a "Western" concept of porn are fankly silly arguments that people grab at to rationalize their opposition. How does it "protect children" to continue the status quo in .com, which is full of easily accessible porn sites, some of it misleadingly labeled? How can any effort to identify and label porn avoid embodying a specific culture? These kids of arguments are simply rationalizations. --MM

...

...

goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au 4/2/2007 10:43 PM >>> Robin,

I strongly disagree with your comments Robin. First, one prerequisite is for applicants for a TLD to have community support. There was no community support from the adult/porn industry. ICM claimed there was but never showed it. My contacts in the adult industry cannot find anyone in the industry who has supported the creation of this TLD. The opposition of religious groups should have been inconsequential, but as subscribers to my news will have seen, they're crowing about their input into the rejection. I would have thought the lack of community support was reason enough to not approve the proposed TLD. Second, I have major reservations about the role ICANN may be forced to play in content regulation should problems eventuate with ICM. In addition, the creation of such a TLD should never have got off the ground. It does nothing to protect children unless there is enforced registrations of adult content in this field. It also uses a western concept on what is adult content. You could easily argue that it is all about western, and mostly American, views about protecting children. Further, those voting against the resolution put forward at the meeting only voted against supporting the resolution. They did not necessarily vote in favour of the creation of a .xxx TLD. To call this censorship is plain wrong. Cheers David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance@lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance@lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance