[kictanet] .xxx rejected

[alice]

John Walubengo wrote:
> Long Live SUSAN CRAWFORD!
>
> She articulated it exactltly the way I always thought.  If
> the guys want .XXX give them .XXX and more. Don't get me
> wrong - i happen to be the religious type and don't support
> porn (adult or otherwise).
>
> However, i find it a very clever way to 'controlling' porn.
>  Give them one ID (domain name) so that it becomes
> technically easier to 'Block' them off.  Technically it is
> easier to issue one single command against 'XXX' and the
> whole country is 'DENIED' access to XXX (porn) than it is
> to try and search millions of domains for porn content in
> order to block them (the current solutions against porn).
>
> In security terms it is known as the 'Honey-Pot' syndrome. 
> If you want to trap all the flies, create a single point of
> attraction (e.g. XXX) and then 'Zap' them right in there.
> And this zapping (Blocking) can be done at Country,
> District and Local(organisational) Level.  So give them
> their damn 'XXX', it becomes easier to control porn that
> way.
>
> walu.
>
> karenb at gn.apc.org
> --- "A. Wanjira Munyua" <alice at apc.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi all
>>
>> Today the ICANN board rejected the .XXX proposal
>> The board votes were:
>>
>> 9 votes against
>> 5 votes in favor
>> 1 abstention
>>
>>
>>
>> Below some excerpts of the discussions from the ICANN
>> ALAC list but entire
>> discussion can be accessed online.
>>
>>
>>     
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   
>> SUSAN CRAWFORD: As a board, we cannot speak as elected
>> representatives
>> of the global Internet community because we have not
>> allowed elections
>> for board members. This application does not present any
>> difficult
>> technical questions, and even if it did, we do not, as a
>> group, claim to
>> have special technical expertise. ...
>>
>>  >>JOICHI ITO: I vote no against the resolution, and I
>> would like to
>> comment briefly. I think Peter, Susan and David have
>> articulated most of
>> the points. I would also like to point out that the
>> discussions and
>> arguments about how we would end up by default becoming
>> entangled in the
>> content aspect of this is not sufficient reason for me to
>> vote in favor
>> of this resolution. It is a reason to look at again, as
>> Susan says, the
>> whole process of gTLDs but maybe even at a higher level
>> the raison
>> d'etre and the existence of ICANN and how it should
>> progress.
>>
>> Susan's full statement is worth reading, so I've
>> reproduced it below.
>>
>> --Wendy
>>
>> SUSAN CRAWFORD: I must dissent from this resolution,
>> which is not only
>> weak but unprincipled. I'm troubled by the path the board
>> has followed
>> on this issue since I joined the board in December of
>> 2005. I'd like to
>> make two points.
>>
>> First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it
>> acts in an ad hoc
>> fashion in response to political pressures. Second, ICANN
>> should take
>> itself seriously, as a private governanced institution
>> with a limited
>> mandate and should resist efforts by governments to veto
>> what it does.
>>
>> I'd like to talk about the role of the board.
>>
>> This decision whether to admit a particular non-confusing
>> legal string
>> into the root is put before the ICANN board because,
>> first, we purport
>> to speak on behalf of the global Internet community. And
>> second, the
>> U.S. Department of Commerce defers to the judgments of
>> that community
>> when deciding what to tell its contractor to add to the
>> authoritative
>> root zone file.
>>
>> As a board, we cannot speak as elected representatives of
>> the global
>> Internet community because we have not allowed elections
>> for board
>> members. This application does not present any difficult
>> technical
>> questions, and even if it did, we do not, as a group,
>> claim to have
>> special technical expertise.
>>
>> So this is not a technical stability and security
>> question.
>>
>> It seems to me that the only plausible basis on which the
>> board can
>> answer the question in the negative -- so could say a
>> group of people
>> may not operate and use a lawful string of letters as a
>> top-level domain
>> -- is to say that the people affected by this decision
>> have a
>> broadly-shared agreement that the admission of this
>> string to the root
>> would amount to unjustifiable wrongdoing.
>>
>> Otherwise, in the absence of technical considerations,
>> the board has no
>> basis for rejecting this application.
>>
>> Let me explain.
>>
>> The most fundamental value of the global Internet
>> community is that
>> people who propose to use the Internet protocols and
>> infrastructures for
>> otherwise lawful purposes, without threatening the
>> operational stability
>> or security of the Internet, should be presumed to be
>> entitled to do so.
>> In a nutshell, everything not prohibited is permitted.
>>
>> This understanding, this value, has led directly to the
>> striking success
>> of the Internet around the world.
>>
>> ICANN's role in gTLD policy development is to seek to
>> assess and
>> articulate the broadly-shared values of the Internet
>> community. We have
>> very limited authority. And we can only speak on behalf
>> of that
>> community. I am personally not aware that any global
>> consensus against
>> the creation of a triple X domain exists.
>>
>> In the absence of such a prohibition, and given our
>> mandate to create
>> TLD competition, we have no authority to block the
>> addition of this TLD
>> to the root. It is very clear that we do not have a
>> global shared set of
>> values about content on-line, save for the global norm
>> against child
>> pornography. But the global Internet community clearly
>> does share the
>> core value that no centralized authority should set
>> itself up as the
>> arbiter of what people may do together on line, absent a
>> demonstration
>> that most of those affected by the proposed activity
>> agree that it
>> should be banned.
>>
>> I'd like to speak about the process of this application.
>>
>> More than three years ago, before I joined the board,
>> ICANN began a
>> process for new sponsored top-level domains. As I've said
>> on many
>> occasions, I think the idea of sponsorship is an empty
>> one. All generic
>> TLDs should be considered sponsored, in that they should
>> be able to
>> create policies for themselves that are not dictated by
>> ICANN. The only
>> exceptions to this freedom for every TLD should be, of
>> course, the very
>> few global consensus policies that are created through
>> the ICANN forum.
>> This freedom is shared by the country code TLDs.
>>
>> Notwithstanding my personal views on the vacuity of the
>> sponsorship
>> idea, the fact is that ICANN evaluated the strength of
>> the sponsorship
>> of triple X, the relationship between the applicant and
>> the community
>> behind the TLD, and, in my personal view, concluded that
>> this criteria
>> had been met as of June 2005. ICANN then went on to
>> negotiate specific
>> contractual terms with the applicant.
>>
>> Since then, real and AstroTurf comments -- that's an
>> Americanism meaning
>> filed comments claiming to be grass-roots opposition that
>> have actually
>> been generated by organized campaigns -- have come into
>> ICANN that
>> reflect opposition to this application.
>>
>> I do not find these recent comments sufficient to warrant
>> revisiting the
>> question of the sponsorship strength of this TLD, which I
>> personally
>> believe to be closed.
>>
>> No applicant for any sponsored TLD could ever demonstrate
>> unanimous,
>> cheering approval for its application. We have no metric
>> against which
>>
>>     
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>  
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. 
> Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
>
>