ICANN Email Archives: [xxx-icm-agreement]

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Board Members, and members of the Internet stakeholder community

I have been following these discussions with interest. Two topics seem to be
intertwined. 

One is about what one's personal view is about adult entertainment, and the
other is about an approved, neutral process for expanding the gTLD name
space.

The ICANN board has to be courageous and neutral about the first category of
perspectives.  What you do need to do is to consider whether the applicant
met the criteria and has addressed the contractual requirements.  I have
followed the various public parts of the discussion with interest. It
appears to me that ICM Registry has met the requirements, and has answered
the questions asked.

Recommendation:
I believe that the ICNAN Board should approve the .xxx registry application.

I understand that 'controversial strings' are challenging.  But the ICANN
board has an obligation to adhere to a neutral process and where an
applicant meets the criteria that is provided in the bid and has fixed any
deficiencies, and then the Board should approve the application.

I have spoken before in public about this topic, and I am happy to clarify
why I am interested and concerned. It is because of my professional
background and because I am a strong proponent of 'sponsored' names' with a
definition of who can register in that sponsored space.   Some may recall
that a few years ago, I wrote a piece on 'logical expansion of the names
space' that Stuart Lynn adapted and expanded in the consideration of the
sponsored category. I am fully aware that some on the Board were
dissatisfied with the experience of 'determining' sponsorship. There are two
sides to the question: one is who the sponsoring community is, and have they
defined a 'sponsored' space, and then whether they will adhere to the
criteria about who can register in that space with integrity, and
enforcement of the criteria. 

Once again, from my review, and participation in a briefing call where
members of the Business Constituency, and others asked questions of ICM
Registry, I believe that the answer to those questions is 'yes'. 

My perspective is probably a little unique among other 'commenter's. I am a
former child abuse/social worker, who worked with children who were abused
or exploited and with the families and caregivers who shared their
experiences and in some instances, caused them. And later in my professional
life, I was quite involved with an early ISP and the ISP community in the
United States.  Parents and caregivers began to worry about their children
when the Internet came along, and offered new ways for children to be
contacted, exposed to undesirable or exploitive material, or accidentally
'wander into sites that were not suitable', due to the adult nature of the
content. Certainly there is undesirable content on the Internet. But it may
be undesirable for a variety of reasons, not just because it is pornography.
For example, the episode of the Colorado Columbine School taught us in the
United States that text access to information about making bombs, and
procuring guns could also lead to harm to children. And, the growth and
evolution of filtering technologies began to emerge as a tool that parents
could use to limit their children's access to unsuitable content and spaces.

Years later, I also helped to create the Internet Summit; AmericaLinksUp,
and GetNetWise in the United States. All of these initiatives were related
to helping protect children online, and help parents and caretakers deal
with the challenges of the Internet, including encountering pornography
online, and with exploitation of children. And helping child protection
authorities and law enforcement address the many challenges of dealing with
predators online.

I personally agree that there is no silver bullet to dealing with offensive
and harmful content.  The entertainment networks of most countries - cable
and even broadcast --carry a wide variety of adult entertainment.  

Is .xxx a silver bullet?  Of course not.

But it is a useful step, and it does help a large number of Internet users
to have the .xxx registry. It will provide improvements and strengthening of
the filtering approaches relied on by parents to guide where their children
go, and the content they encounter. And it will help law enforcement and
ISPs know that some of the providers of adult material online have
established other self governance procedures, and that they are fully in
support of adhering to approaches that can limit who can access the .xxx
space. Thus, less space to worry about. The steps that .xxx registry
proposes will help to ensure that child pornography is not allowed in the
registration space managed by .xxx registry, among other things, and will
help to improve the self governance of the adult entertainment community. 

That is a benefit. And as a side benefit, it will help to fund some of those
vital services that address the real challenges of helping to protect
children online, and strengthen in other ways, the resources available and
the informational tools available through funding awareness programs.

So, frankly, recalling the days when I testified before the US Congress
about efforts of online providers to give parents tools and resources to
address protecting their children online and the range of things that would
help, I personally think that .xxx is a useful step. It offers some
improvements.

I understand the ICANN Board seems to be struggling with 'enforceability'.
I suggest that you ask the sponsor to deliver on enforceability and step
back, as you have on other sponsored gTLDs.

Is the entire community of 'adult entertainment providers on board? No, but
it certainly appears that the majority of the responsible adult webmasters
are. And that is important. As this becomes a defined and recognized space,
more will be - and thus the community's ability to self govern will grow.

The board should respect that the registry has met the criteria established,
approve the contract, and let the community experience the benefit of while
not a perfected space, an improved space.

Then all of us need to return to focusing on perfecting a balanced approach
to the consensus policy underway now for new gTLDs and IDNs. I foresee many
new controversial topics yet to present themselves. This is not the last
time that the Board and the community will need to show neutrality, and
courage.

Best wishes in your deliberations.

Marilyn Cade

05 Feb 2007