Re: [ PRIVACY Forum ] Call for ICANN to Kill "Dot-Ex-Ex-Ex" Top-Level Domain at Tomorrow's Vote

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Lauren and all,

  Personally I agree with your arguments.  I believe .XXX is as I
have said many times, a legal trap as well a nuisance and does
set a scenario of arguing later against real privacy issues as you
rightly indicate.  I also cannot see .XXX being attractive to
the internet based adult entertainment industry either.  .COM
is far more attractive, and .ORG is likely nearly as attractive,
and there are already many adult entertainment industry
domain names registered in both .ORG and .COM TLD
name space now, and in .COM there has been for several
years at least.

  What I believe ICANN is wanting to do is to segment
content by type in specialized TLD's ergo sTLD name
space's like .XXX ect.  Hence achieving in theory,
a form of Censorship ICANN thinks will be more
readily acceptable by a "Consensus", declared by
ICANN of course, of stakeholders.  Of course
nothing could be further from reality.

  What really embarrasses ICANN is .ORG which is
operated by PIR which is closely associated with
the ISOC whom ICANN considers their right arm,
has a growing number of adult entertainment industry
domain names which makes ICANN look like it is
in or associated with and/or in that sort of industry,
and factually it is.  But .XXX will not change that
one bit.  For instance can you imagine Playboy.com
changing their domain name to Playboy.XXX, or
Hustler.com doing the same?  I can't without a hell
of a legal and political fight, and a very nasty one
as well...

  So, ICANN is in the position of dammed if they
do and dammed if they don't approve .XXX.

Lauren Weinstein wrote:

> Jeff, et al.,
>
> Here's the bottom line as I see it.  If .XXX is created, we know
> that it will immediately be added to virtually every corporate and
> "family friendly" block list in the world -- in fact I wouldn't be
> surprised to find it becoming a *default* blocked TLD by some (most?)
> ISPs -- that you'd have to specifically request be unblocked (like
> adult movie channels on cable).
>
> Given this, we know that the adult industry players obviously have
> no intention of giving up their dot-com or whatever other domains
> and will continue business as usual via them as well.
>
> But just because it's technically possible to create this new
> revenue stream for ICM, doesn't mean that ICANN should allow it --
> given that this would be the first TLD created where controversial
> and highly emotional value judgments regardingly inclusion -- with
> major political implications -- are involved.  There's just no valid
> way to separate the non-technical and technical issues in this case.
>
> If we knew for a fact that .XXX would *always* be voluntary, that
> there wouldn't be efforts in various locales around the world to
> force all Web sites locally viewed as "objectionable" into that
> "ghetto domain," then perhaps it wouldn't be such a big deal --
> other than issues related to the "appropriateness" of handing all
> that money to ICM.
>
> But if we agree that the existence of .XXX is likely to trigger
> or otherwise inspire moves toward such censorship, then this just
> isn't an acceptable direction to be going in.  What's more, many
> elements of the anti-porn side of the equation also hate the idea of
> .XXX, believing that it will spread more of the material.
>
> It's virtually impossible to see how .XXX can ultimately become
> anything but an anti-privacy, pro-censorship, litigation trap,
> despite any and all "protections" built into the TLD application.
>
> If ICANN approves .XXX we can be sure it won't be the end of the
> controversy, but only the beginning.  And with this kind of
> "third-rail" issue, the results aren't going to be pretty in
> that case.
>
> --Lauren--
> Lauren Weinstein
> lauren@xxxxxxxxxx or lauren@xxxxxxxx
> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
> http://www.pfir.org/lauren
> Co-Founder, PFIR
>    - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
> Co-Founder, IOIC
>    - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net
> Founder, CIFIP
>    - California Initiative For Internet Privacy - http://www.cifip.org
> Founder, 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
>
>   - - -
>
> > Lauren and all,
> >
> >   I agree as do many of our members for many of the same reasons
> > you state.  However there is no good technical reason for not
> > allowing .XXX, even though I and many others see it as a
> > trap on privacy, ergo a slippery slope in and of itself.
> >
> >   The real problem ICANN is having is that .com and .org
> > already have so many porn related registrations [ Domain
> > names ] they are seemingly not willing to police their own
> > registries accordingly.  Of course ICANN will adamantly
> > deny this or ignore same, ergo defacto denial.
> >
> > privacy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > >    Call for ICANN to Kill "Dot-Ex-Ex-Ex" Top-Level Domain at Tomorrow's 
> > > Vote
> > >
> > >                http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000220.html
> > >
> > > Greetings.  As is already widely known, I remain very strongly
> > > opposed to the creation of a dot-ex-ex-ex TLD (top-level domain),
> > > and would find it necessary to continue such opposition through
> > > whatever venues are available if the domain is approved at a likely
> > > ICANN vote tomorrow.  I feel that dot-ex-ex-ex would create a
> > > disastrous slippery slope for censorship and free speech, despite
> > > its ostensibly "voluntary" nature.  I don't think this is an area
> > > where ICANN should wish to tread even peripherally.  Like many
> > > observers, I fail to see what constituency would be positively
> > > served by dot-ex-ex-ex, other than ICM -- the company that would run
> > > the TLD and profit from its use.
> > >
> > > The relatively heavy speculative "pre-registrations" on the domain are
> > > obviously mainly driven by protective actions from existing dot-com
> > > domain holders, who cannot afford to have the dot-ex-ex-ex versions
> > > of their domain names obtained by someone else.  This hardly
> > > qualifies as "support" for the dot-ex-ex-ex concept.
> > >
> > > I hope that ICANN will choose to kill this idea once and for all.  I
> > > fear that if it is approved, it will only represent the start of a
> > > long legal path as various governmental and private parties attempt
> > > to block it, and that would be an unfortunate waste of time and
> > > resources for everyone.
> > >
> > > --Lauren--
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > privacy mailing list
> > > http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> >    Abraham Lincoln
> >
> > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> > United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> > ===============================================================
> > Updated 1/26/04
> > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> > IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >  Registered Email addr with the USPS
> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827
> >
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827