Opposed to .xxx

[Reed Lee <reedlee@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I write to reiterate some of the points made
by the Free Speech Coalition, with which I am
affiliated.  I might note at the outset -- since
one February 5 commenter complained about 
"self-appointed" voices coming out of the wood-
work in opposition to .xxx -- that I have thrice
been elected to the FSC Board of Directors
in direct elections of the membership open to
all in the adult entertainment community.
Jeffrey Douglas, who also signed FSC's February
5 comments, has been so elected many more times
than that.  And .xxx has been an open issue
at FSC since before the sTLD proposal was
submitted.  Not only have we been in the thick
of relevant free speech controversies for years,
we have heard and discussed issues specifically
related to .xxx with the very  community which
is supposed to be "sponsored" here.

Approval of ICM's .xxx sTLD proposal is decidedly
against the interests of free expression on the
Internet.  As the Free Speech Coalition noted in
its February 5, 2007 comment, the world is simply
not ready for a .xxx TLD _except_ as an instrument
of regulation and censorship.  ICANN might honestly
envision a .xxx TLD as a truly voluntary option,
and it is even conceivable that ICM genuinely contem-
plates a voluntary .xxx TLD, even though it would
financially benefit from a mandatory one.

But as I pointed out last Spring, neither ICANN
nor ICM can keep .xxx voluntary.  The only decision
in ICANN's hands is whether or not to adopt the
.xxx TLD.  If it does so, pro-censorship groups and
governments -- many of whom _oppose_ a _voluntary_
.xxx TLD for reasons of their own -- will have no choice
but to seek to make it mandatory.  And that is a fight
-- political, legal, and worldwide -- which those of us
in the free speech community do not need or want,
now or in the foreseeable future.

ICANN must consider how others will react to a
.xxx TLD.  The Government Advisory Committee
has indicated that some member governments
are opposed to the very concept.  Many of those
governments could move to make .xxx mandatory,
and their decisions would be out of ICANN's hands.
In the last session of the U.S. Congress, a bill
was introduced to require a mandatory .xxx TLD.
Such bills would surely be renewed if pro-censorship
governments and other groups were left with a
voluntary .xxx as the only alternative.

It may well be that no .xxx is the _second_ choice
of many, including those concerned to expand the 
domain name space as well as those concerned
with censorship.  But since many will disagree over
their first choice (mandatory .xxx for the censorship
forces vs. voluntary .xxx for those who want an
expanded domain name space) the safest choice
for all is _no_ .xxx.

I am acutely aware that strong and sustained
opposition to .xxx has arisen from both sides of
the free speech/censorship spectrum.  This alone
should be a sign of how dangerous a .xxx TLD is.
Those of us who have spent years in the free
speech fray most strenuously urge ICANN
to stay away from it, to stick to its mission of
assuring the technical vitality of the Internet.

For these reasons, any .xxx proposal is likely
to be a bad idea for free speech on the Internet
now and into the foreseeable future.  Also for 
these reasons, it is a bad idea for the sound
development of the domain name space.  ICANN
should avoid TLDs which are deliberately and
inextricably tied to the most controversial ex-
pression on the Internet.  Otherwise, the TLDs
will become much more than a method of finding
Internet content; sustained and unavoidable
pressures will arise to use them as instruments
of censorship.  It is easy to think of possible TLDs
which ICANN would surely reject as too contro-
versial.  Those who are familiar with the free
speech debates surrounding sexual expression
know that .xxx is in that category too.

Indeed it was for just this reason, in part, that
one of the independent advisory committees
was right to reject the .xxx proposal.  Like the
GAC, the free speech community and the adult
webmaster community believe that the ICANN
Board must address that rejection, and take
guidance from it.  It should also recognize that
.xxx has and will invariably ensconce ICANN in a
squeeze play:  as it moves to meet the concerns
of those who believe that .xxx would somehow
sanction or  liberate sexual expression, it raises
the concerns of those who believe it should stay
out of the content regulation business and stick
to its technical mandate.  One need look no further
than the GAC members and the history of
Appendix S to see those competing concerns
pressing home.

It is also clear that ICM's .xxx proposal fails as
a sTLD as well.  It is now abundantly clear that
the supposed sponsored community not only fails
to support the .xxx TLD but very actively and
very vociferously opposes it.  Those ICANN Board
members who have expressed concern on this score
are right to observe that ICM's initial showing was
thin and opaque and that it is, in any event, seriously
out of date.  While some in the adult webmaster
community initially entertained ICM's .xxx proposal
as an interesting idea, virtually everyone has
rejected it after thinking it through.  Typical in this
regard are AVN and XBIZ, the leading journals of
the adult entertainment community worldwide.
The widespread sentiment at the February 7 XBIZ
seminar on .xxx confirms that these journals genuinely
speak for their readership on this issue.  I respectfully
submit, too, that the recent comments to this page
also demonstrate the opposition which is widespread
in the sponsored community.  And ASACP -- which,
with the adult entertainment industry's solid support,
seeks to protect children while leaving adults free to
exchange expression of interest to them -- now
indicates that a .xxx TLD will not serve to protect
children.

Even if ICM were to cast -- or recast -- the sponsored
community as some tiny subset of the adult webmaster
community, it would merely serve to show how pointless
are the claimed benefits of .xxx.  Any filtering benefits
can be achieved by other safer and less expensive means.
And the proposed self-regulation (which will not be self-
regulation at all given the inexperience of ICM and IFFOR
with _any_ of the relevant issues or with the community),
would be so pointless among a tiny group of .xxx sup-
porters that it would quickly melt away.  

Neither I nor anyone else at the Free Speech Coalition
knows of any remotely solid or substantial support with-
in the sponsored community for the .xxx proposal.
Indeed, we know of nothing but firm opposition.  And
we remain concerned that ICM's initial showing of support
-- weak and dated as that was and is -- remains shrouded
in secrecy.  We will continue to object on that score so
long as that remains an issue.  At the very least, the
ICANN Board should demand of ICM an updated and
transparent showing of the support which it claims.
We are remain available to demonstrate the contrary.

At every stage of this application, ICM has sought
to rush its case to judgment.  It has sought to
proceed quickly, before people have a chance to
think the issues through.  For one thing, ICM has
always been aware that its claims of support could
not stand the light of day.  And for another, virtually
every claim made for .xxx falls away, upon careful
thought, at least so long as .xxx remains voluntary.
It is possible that the sort of voluntary schemes
which ICM apparently envisions (although it _still_
_refuses_ to spell them out in advance in the proposed
registry agreement, in proposed Appendix S or any-
where else) might work among a small group of large
content producers who can shield themselves from
competition by high barriers to entry.  At best,
though, that would bring the sort of self-censorship
which throttled motion pictures worldwide for decades
under the Hays Code.  Happily, the Internet does not
work that way.  Its extraordinary value as an expressive
tool -- for all kinds of expression -- is the many small
voices which it brings to the world. 

In many unfortunate ways, the adoption of
a .xxx TLD would change the Internet.  Its
adoption would serve no interests other than 
the profit interests of ICM.  And it would very likely
hurt the interest of millions -- Internet stakeholders
too -- who do not want the censorship which
.xxx could easily bring or even the censorship
wars which the adoption of a .xxx TLD would
surely unleash.

Reed Lee.