[kictanet] why i voted fo .xxx- by susan crawford
alice
alice at apc.org
Fri Apr 6 17:13:55 EAT 2007
Okay....policy formulation is a pretty complex process made even more
complex when issues of cultural values etc are at stake and especially
if there is room for all interests groups to express their stands/issues...
This has become quite an emotive subject and I can bet you that ICANN
will soon have to deal with more of these.
thanks and best
alice
Alex Gakuru wrote:
> Alice! Pretty powerful "impose all intolerances cumulatively on
> everyone". My response would be like:-) "ICANN board asserted that
> capitalism too has limits" or "end-users carry the day forcing the
> internet's highest technical authority to listen to their majority
> (*read* democratic) voices", or something like that.
>
> The internet tolerates this content and googling "porn filter" shows
> opposite efforts proving democratic space does exist and there is
> already a big enough problem getting filtering it off the .coms among
> other others which *were not to disappear* if it was approved anyway
> (incidentally these were threatened by proposed .xxx)
>
> What I am opposed to is the .xxx status elevation, without an openly
> identifiable supporting community of users besides the porn industry,
> who already have their own freedom and space.
>
> Also, approving .xxx would have meant everyone is told of existence of
> .xxx before connection-->back-door free marketing of this domain all
> over the world?
>
> To the balance of 5 out of 6 billion global population unconnected,
> internet risks being synonymous to porn which would deter internet
> uptake among connectivity deprived global population, hampering
> various many other productive uses of the internet.
>
> However, I understand opinions expressed, such as, from "Dot-XXX
> Decision Exposes Cracks in Net Governance System"
> <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1260/135/> but clearly
> Americans libraries users have the same similar problems with is
> domain <http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/06/59359>
>
> But if anyone pointed me to just one country where a democratic
> majority of internet users support this domain, then perhaps I may
> reconsider my position.
>
> /Alex
>
> */alice <alice at apc.org>/* wrote:
>
> Alex, am afraid then this would be an attempt to "impose all
> intolerances cumulatively on everyone" ICANN's criteria for
> consideration of TLD selection will constantly pit one culture
> against
> another and in a way this invites the view that creation of TLD's is
> based on a set of ideas rather than coordination of unique strings.
>
> I am afraid this is the beginning of suppression of diversity and
> expression. ICANN should have approved and let public policy at the
> national level negotiate and regulate according to their norms
>
>
>
>
> Alex Gakuru wrote:
> > Alice,
> >
> > Sorry I defer slightly on this, "In cases of conflict, public
> interest
> > is supreme", whether regarding internet, broadcasting, print,
> > advertising and all other media. To me, the same goes with ICANN.
> >
> > Maybe ICANN decision processes are the problem, it is the issue
> at hand,
> > but where would it be the highest best place to establish a
> precedent?
> > ICANN.
> >
> > I fear we could be ventilating to ICANN while this remains a
> test on
> > right
> > or wrong with ICANN in focus this time around?
> >
> > Next time will it not be, if it not always been, regulators over
> this
> > content
> > on TV, radio channels, print media, advertisements not internet
> domain
> > names policy.
> >
> > Principally, would endorsing this domain generate more "eager want"
> > essentially translating to advertising and popularising as now
> "ICANN
> > globally acceptable norms"? And In the process wooing vulnerable,
> > info-challenged (such as our rural 30 millions currrently
> unconnected)
> > and innocent kids who will end up trapped?
> >
> > .xxx is bad for Kenya's economy. Global annual profits from
> trafficked
> > forced labour is $32 billion (Sh2.4 trillion) with the Middle East,
> > North and sub-Saharan Africa generating $1.75 billion (Sh131
> billion).
> >
> > To grasp the impact and our international perception, relate
> this with
> > global human trafficking which Kenya, unfortunately, has not had a
> > very good record. Although things have changed with media
> reports of
> > many coastal raids, in
> > 2004 were ranked on "Tier 2 watchlist" in this document
> >
> > �Kenya is a country of origin, destination, and transit for
> victims
> > trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced
> labor.
> > Victims are trafficked from South Asian and East Asian countries
> and
> > the Middle East through Kenya to European destinations for sexual
> > exploitation.
> > Asian nationals, principally Indians, Bangladeshi, and Nepalese,
> are
> > trafficked into Kenya and coerced into bonded labor in the
> > construction and garment industries. Kenyan children are trafficked
> > internally from rural areas to urban centers and coastal areas into
> > involuntary servitude, including work as street vendors and day
> > laborers, and into prostitution. Women and children are trafficked
> > from Burundi and Rwanda to coastal areas in Kenya for sexual
> > exploitation in the growing sex tourism industry.�
> > So what's the big deal .xxx? That stuff is plenty already out there
> > will not
> > automagically disappear from current domains, if .xxx was agreed to,
> > maybe it would have even become more expensive to target users
> > anyway because domain name sponsors would expect a royalty fee?
> >
> > Needless to say this would also make it more lucrative for
> content filter
> > programs makers.
> >
> > Curiosity killed the cat. More interest would be created to
> access among
> > kids told never to go to these domains- (like in the Adam and
> Eve story).
> >
> > Who will be next after ICANN, advocates may ask for legit
> billboards,
> > specialised broadcasts channels and because they claim will be
> > responsible, they will ask all radio and TV owners to buy special
> > channels filters, as new channels get "licensed"? Filters would be
> > a very big additional cost to many users around the world. Content
> > filters selling programs is already quite lucrative business.
> >
> > /Alex
> >
> > */alice /* wrote:
> >
> >
> > Agree with you Njeri that ICANN's core mandate is technical
> > regulation
> > of the internet, however, the moment it made a decision on the dot
> > XXX,
> > a matter in my opinion that is ideologically loaded, it is moving
> > out of
> > technical regulation into the public policy sphere.
> >
> >
> > Reason why numerous countries, and the EU for example, raised
> > issues of
> > public policy principles for management of internet resources
> > during the
> > WSIS Tunis agenda.
> >
> >
> > As others have observed, the decision is indeed a symptom of
> > international policy malaise on developing globally acceptable
> > rules for
> > governing the internet in the interest of the public and these
> > contradictions are likely to recur.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Njeri Rionge wrote:
> > >
> > > Rebecca, I personally prefer to remain succinct.
> > >
> > > In addition to the reasons stated in the resolution, I vote no
> > for the
> > > following reasons.
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. that the ICM proposal does not take into account the
> > > global cultural issues and concerns that relate to the
> > > immediate introduction of this TLD onto the internet,
> > > 2. that the ICM proposal will not protect the relevant or
> > > interested community from the adult entertainment
> > > websites by a significant percentage
> > > 3. that the ICM proposal focuses on content management
> > > which is not in ICANN�s technical mandate
> > > 4. the ICM proposal conflicts with our recently consistent
> > > rebattle with ITU during the WSIS, which is still very
> > > fresh in our minds and the community, we need to be
> > > consistent with core mandate of ICANN
> > >
> > >
> > > In reference to the resolution, this can be accessed:-
> > > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-30mar07.htm
> > >
> > > Be reminded that the vote was 9 against and 5 for, and 1
> > abstention.
> > > If you look at the trend from inception, this matter has even
> > received
> > > a for vote initially and therefore cannot be sighted my this
> > fact that
> > > the vote was based on morality and personal believes. This has
> > been a
> > > complex issue and will continue to be until we resolve some
> > > fundamental principles of structure and redefined objectives
> of the
> > > institution/corporation as a whole.
> > >
> > > Ps, this information was posted on the internet as well.
> > >
> > >
> > > Njeri,
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/5/07 9:09 AM, "Rebecca Wanjiku" wrote:
> > >
> > > i thought we should expect reasons/explanations like this from
> > > ICANN representatives on the board,
> > > just a thought,
> > > read on
> > >
> > >
> > > *Why I Voted for .XXX
> > > *
> > > By *Susan Crawford*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *The ICANN Board voted today 9-5, with Paul Twomey abstaining, to
> > > reject a proposal to open .xxx. This is my statement in connection
> > > with that vote. I found the resolution adopted by the Board
> > > (rejecting xxx) both weak and unprincipled.
> > > *
> > > I am troubled by the path the Board has followed on this issue
> > > since I joined the Board in December of 2005. I would 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 governance
> > > institution with a limited mandate and should resist efforts by
> > > governments to veto what it does.
> > >
> > > *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 (1) we
> > > purport to speak on behalf of the global internet community and
> > > (2) 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 ("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 an .xxx 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 online, 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 online,
> > > absent a demonstration that most of those affected by the proposed
> > > activity agree that it should be banned.
> > >
> > > *Process
> > > *
> > > More than three years ago, before I joined the Board, ICANN began
> > > a process for new sponsored top level domains. As I have 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 xxx (the relationship between the applicant
> > > and the �community� behind the TLD) and, in my 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 (filed comments
> claiming
> > > to be grassroots opposition that have actually been generated by
> > > organized campaigns) have come in to ICANN that reflect opposition
> > > to this application. I do not find these recent comments
> > > sufficient to warrant re-visiting 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 to measure this opposition, and thus we have
> > > no idea how significant it is. We should not be in the business of
> > > judging the level of market or community support for a new TLD
> > > before the fact. We will only get in the way of useful innovation
> > > if we take the view that every new TLD must prove itself to us
> > > before it can be added to the root.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that what is meant by �sponsorship� (a
> notion that
> > > I hope we abandon) is to show that there is enough interest in a
> > > particular TLD that it will be viable. We also have the idea that
> > > registrants should participate in (and be bound by) the creation
> > > of policies for a particular string. Both of these requirements
> > > have been met by this applicant. There is clearly enough interest
> > > (including more than 70,000 pre-registrations from 1,000 or more
> > > unique registrants who are members of the adult industry), and the
> > > applicant has undertaken to us that it will require adherence to
> > > its self-regulatory policies by all of its registrants. To the
> > > extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN
> > > should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD
> > > makes a valuable contribution to the namespace, I differ with
> > > them. I do not think ICANN is capable of making such a
> > > determination. Indeed, this argument is very much like those made
> > > by the pre-divestiture AT&T when it claimed that no �foreign
> > > attachments� to its network (like answering machines) should be
> > > allowed, in part because AT&T asserted there was no public demand
> > > for them. The rise of the internet was arguably made possible by
> > > allowing many �foreign attachments� to the network -
> called modems.
> > >
> > > We established a process for sTLDs some time ago. We have taken
> > > this applicant through this process. We now appear to be changing
> > > the process. We should not act in this fashion.
> > >
> > > *Politics
> > > *
> > > Discomfort with this application may have been sparked anew by (1)
> > > the letter from individual GAC members Janis Karklins and Sharil
> > > Tarmizi (to which Amb. Karklins has told us the GAC acceded as a
> > > whole by its silence), and (2) the letter from the Australian
> > > government.
> > >
> > > I am not at all opposed to receiving advice from the Government
> > > Advisory Committee. But the entire point of ICANN�s creation was
> > > to avoid the operation of chokepoint content control over the
> > > domain name system by individual or collective governments. The
> > > idea was that the US would serve as a good steward for other
> > > governmental concerns by staying in the background and overseeing
> > > ICANN�s activities, but not engaging in content-related control.
> > > Australia�s letter, and concerns expressed in the past by Brazil
> > > and other countries about xxx, are explicitly content-based and
> > > thus inappropriate, in my view.
> > >
> > > If, after creation of an xxx TLD, certain governments of the world
> > > want to ensure that their citizens do not see xxx content, it is
> > > within their prerogative as sovereigns to instruct internet access
> > > providers physically located within their territory to block such
> > > content. Also, if certain governments want to ensure that *all*
> > > adult content providers with a physical presence in their country
> > > register exclusively within xxx, that is their prerogative as
> > > well. (I note that such a requirement in the U.S. would violate
> > > the First Amendment to our Constitution.) But this content-related
> > > censorship should not be ICANN�s concern, and ICANN should not
> > > allow itself to be used as a private lever for government
> > > chokepoint content control by making up reasons to avoid the
> > > creation of such a TLD in the first place. To the extent there are
> > > public policy concerns with this TLD, they can be dealt with
> > > through local law. Registration in (or visitation of) domains in
> > > this TLD is purely voluntary.
> > >
> > > If ICANN were to base its decisions on the views of the Australian
> > > (or US, or Brazilian) government, ICANN would have compromised
> > > away its very reason for existence as a private non-governmental
> > > governance institution.
> > >
> > > *Conclusion
> > > *
> > > I continue to be dissatisfied with elements of the proposed xxx
> > > contract, including but not limited to the �rapid takedown�
> > > provision of Appendix S,1 which is manifestly designed to placate
> > > trademark owners and ignores the many due process concerns that
> > > have been expressed about the existing UDRP. I am confident that
> > > if I had a staff or enough time I could find many things to carp
> > > about in this draft contract. But I am certain that if I
> > > complained about these terms my concerns would be used to justify
> > > derailing this application for political reasons. I plan,
> > > therefore, to turn my attention to the new gTLD process that was
> > > promised for January 2007 (a promise that has not been kept) in
> > > hopes that we will someday have a standard contract and objective
> > > process that can help ICANN avoid engaging in unjustifiable ad hoc
> > > actions. We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the
> > > basis of their technical and financial strength, and we should
> > > avoid dealing with �content� concerns to the maximum extent
> > > possible. We should be opening up new TLDs. I hope we will find a
> > > way to achieve such a sound process in short order.
> > > Rebecca Wanjiku,
> > > journalist,
> > > p.o box 33515,
> > > Nairobi.00600
> > > Kenya.
> > >
> > > Tel. 254 720 318 925
> > >
> > > blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Finding fabulous fares is fun.
> > > Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites
> > >
> > > to find flight and hotel bargains.
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > kictanet mailing list
> > > kictanet at kictanet.or.ke
> > > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> > >
> > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at
> > >
> >
> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/njeri.rionge%40igniteconsulting.co.ke
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ===================================================
> > > Njeri Rionge
> > > Chief Executive Officer
> > > Ignite Consulting Limited
> > > Eden Square 7th Floor
> > > Chiromo Rd, Westlands
> > > P. O. Box 15568 00100 GPO Nairobi, Kenya
> > > T: (254 20) 3673250�9
> > > E: _njeri.rionge at igniteconsulting.co.ke
> > > http://www.igniteconsulting.co.ke
> > > _
> > > /Professional, Life Skills Coaching, Value Added Training on
> > > Conformity and Compliance,
> > > Business Management, Organizational Development and Facilitation.
> > > /
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > kictanet mailing list
> > > kictanet at kictanet.or.ke
> > > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> > >
> > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at
> > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > kictanet mailing list
> > kictanet at kictanet.or.ke
> > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> >
> > Please unsubscribe or change your options at
> >
> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265>
> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at kictanet.or.ke
> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
More information about the KICTANet
mailing list