[IP] more on ex-ex-ex and ICANN

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
Date: June 2, 2005 3:42:40 PM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: lauren@vortex.com
Subject: Re: [IP] ex-ex-ex and ICANN


Dave,

This is a much more important issue than most people may realize,
even for those persons who have no interest of any kind in
pornography.

Kevin is confusing chatter and political posturing with formal
public discourse within a clearly defined decision-making process.
The idea of ex-ex-ex has been "pushed" by various parties for a long
time, for obvious political and financial reasons.

ICANN has (until now, basically) wisely resisted those pressures.
The ICANN forum Kevin refers to contains a relatively few messages,
written by an even smaller number of people.  Nor is it clear in
what way -- if any -- those messages impact ICANN decision-making
(which is why so many people view those forums as meaningless).

It is understandable why the hardcore porn industry would support
ex-ex-ex -- they want a "safe" place to peddle their products, and
they know that their customers will find them and whip out those
credit cards, just as they do now, for their "fine" offerings.  My
view of freedom of speech is expansive enough to include their legal
operations.  However, I believe that in supporting ex-ex-ex they
will ultimately learn that they have played into the hands of those
whose real agenda is to effectively shut them down.

I am frankly less concerned with the porn merchants than with the
other categories of materials as I described earlier, that may well
find themselves forced into an ex-ex-ex domain structure, with highly
detrimental effects on non-pornographic speech of many kinds.  It is
these latter classes of content providers -- most of whom have
likely not been following the ex-ex-ex issues at all -- who are most
at risk as ICANN now proceeds to take the easy way out.

ICANN's new position is understandable of course.  They've been
pounded on for years by many of us for poor policies, and they know
that their franchise has become rather insecure.  The
"politically-correct" pressures on them regarding ex-ex-ex and
related matters have been enormous.  Still, this is no excuse for bad
decision making that is likely to have dramatic impacts that go far
beyond the control of pornography.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@pfir.org or lauren@vortex.com or lauren@eepi.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, EEPI
  - Electronic Entertainment Policy Initiative - http://www.eepi.org
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com

 - - -


> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Kevin Murphy <kmurphy@datamonitor.com>
> Date: June 2, 2005 2:23:22 PM EDT
> To: dave@farber.net
> Subject: RE: [IP] more on ICANN's "ex-ex-ex" domains and the slippery
> slope
>
>
> This topic has been under discussion for almost 5 years, and there's
> been opportunity for the public to provide comment for over a year.
> Most of the comments, some from respected organizations and
> individuals, were positive.
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/stld-rfp-xxx/
>
>
>
>
>
> Kevin Murphy
>
> US Bureau Chief
> ComputerWire, Inc
> 5 Third Street, Suite 520
> San Francisco, CA 94103
> 415 543 5496
> www.computerwire.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ip@v2.listbox.com [mailto:owner-ip@v2.listbox.com]On  
> Behalf
> Of David Farber
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:08 AM
> To: Ip ip
> Subject: [IP] more on ICANN's "ex-ex-ex" domains and the slippery  
> slope
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Lin, Herb" <HLin@nas.edu>
> Date: June 2, 2005 10:08:56 AM EDT
> To: dave@farber.net, Ip ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>
> Cc: lauren@vortex.com
Subject: RE: [IP] ICANN's "ex-ex-ex" domains and the slippery slope

> All of the issues that Lauren mentions are discussed, at length, the
> report of the National Research Council on "Youth, Pornography, and  
> the
> Internet."  (This was a report to Congress, mandated at Congressional
> request.)
>
> http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10261.html
>
> Chapter 13, Section 13.1.
>
> Herb Lin
> (editor of said volume)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ip@v2.listbox.com [mailto:owner-ip@v2.listbox.com] On  
> Behalf
> Of David Farber
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 9:10 AM
> To: Ip ip
> Subject: [IP] ICANN's "ex-ex-ex" domains and the slippery slope
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
> Date: June 2, 2005 12:39:32 AM EDT
> To: dave@farber.net
> Cc: lauren@vortex.com
> Subject: ICANN's "ex-ex-ex" domains and the slippery slope
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
> As noted in:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/06/01/internet.porn.ap/ 
> index.html
>
> ICANN has reversed its long-standing opposition to a TLD (top-level
> domain) "red-light district" and is moving toward creation
> of a "dot-ex-ex-ex" domain space (my phonetic spelling is an attempt
> to avoid having this message and your list shunted by the usual
> simpleminded filters).
>
> This about-face by ICANN demonstrates yet again how major decisions
> by the organization are made without significant, broad public
> discourse.  Ironically, it also reverses one of the more sensible
> arguments that ICANN had previously been making.
>
> Unlike other "topic-specific" TLDs like dot-jobs or dot-travel, the
> existence of dot-ex-ex-ex is likely to create a political and
> litigious firestorm over time, as various government entities move
> to try force "adult" sites into the new domain space, and battles
> erupt over what an adult site is defined to be.
>
> While some obviously hardcore sites will likely be enthusiastic
> about having an ostensibly "safe" TLD for operations, a vast number
> of sites that aren't hardcore, or that have a variety of materials
> -- only some of which are adult oriented in nature -- are likely to be
> far less willing to be categorized in that manner.
>
> Will there be calls for any site with explicit photographs or texts
> (even in classical or health contexts) to be relegated to the new
> dot-ex-ex-ex domains?  What about sites selling contraceptives,
> sexual aids, or "adult toys" of various kinds?  Given the history of
> the religous right, these should not be considered to be far-fetched
> possibilities.  Will it be mandated that you must "prove" your adult
> status (e.g., by identifying yourself with a credit card) before you
> may have access to the new domains?  Certainly many organizations
> (and possibly even ISPs) will be pressured to block access, making
> "forced" population of the new TLD even more problematic.
>
> And does this set a precedent that will be applied to other areas of
> Internet content control, especially if some or all of the
> Children's Online Protection Act (COPA) is upheld by the Supreme
> Court?
>
> The creation of dot-ex-ex-ex may set the stage for potentially
> damaging and disruptive content control and censorship wars that we
> can hardly even imagine today.  It's worth thinking through these
> issues very carefully before going down that path.
>
> --Lauren--
> Lauren Weinstein
> lauren@pfir.org or lauren@vortex.com or lauren@eepi.org
> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
> http://www.pfir.org/lauren
> Co-Founder, PFIR
>      - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
> Co-Founder, EEPI
>      - Electronic Entertainment Policy Initiative - http:// 
> www.eepi.org
> Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
> Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
> DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as hlin@nas.edu
> To manage your subscription, go to
>     http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at:
> http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as kevin.murphy@computerwire.com
> To manage your subscription, go to
>    http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
> people/
>
>
> This Message has been scanned by blackspider.
> If you believe it is spam forward it to spam@blackspider.com who will
> consider your request.
>
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person
> responsible for delivering to the intended recipient, please be
> advised that it has been sent in error and therefore any use is
> strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or if you
> are concerned about the content of this email, please notify our IT
> helpdesk on +44 20 7675 7000.
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as lauren@pfir.org
> To manage your subscription, go to
>   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/


-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/