What Are We Scared Of? A Case for the ICM Registry Application
What Are We Scared Of? A Case for the ICM Registry Application From Kathy Kleiman *Introduction: * The application of the ICM Registry comes to the Board for a vote this Tuesday. As the Board prepares to examine the merits of this application, yet again, I would like to raise the question – what are we scared of? *I. Are we scared the application does not meet the criteria? * It is my understanding that the ICM Registry meets the criteria and more. This applicant submitted its application in 2003 for a sponsored top level domain and then worked closely with the ICANN staff to repeatedly modify the application and add additional features. Last year the ICM Registry was deemed to have a sufficient sponsored community. Most recently it added an affiliation with a well-known online rating system, a group with a reputation for solid technical administration of online rating processes. The application appears to meet all the criteria for grant. *II. Are we scared the application brings controversy? * After years of work with ICANN we know there is almost never change without controversy. There was controversy surrounding the creation of ICANN, its UDRP, now the Whois, and ever other aspect of its work. Ultimately ICANN has always moved forward in the face of controversy. There is no choice. Further, controversy in the technical arena is nothing new. Competitors and those with a stake in the industry often oppose. For example, the US Federal Communications Commission’s initial proposal for a new technology that later led to Wi-Fi met with strong and diverse opposition. The idea of modifying the “Part 15” spectrum, to tweak the rules -- to allow the new technology to operate along side existing radios -- met with stiff opposition from other spectrum users. The opponents predicted massive interference and worked hard to block the change. But the FCC rose above the fray, looked at the evidence, and decided to approve the technology. Today Wi-Fi networks connect laptop users to wireless local area networks at coffee shops, offices, homes, and airports around the US, and they cause little interference to other users. *III. Are we scared that the proposal enters political space? * The ICM Registry deals with some of the world’s most controversial content. But it meets the question head-on. The new top level domain comes in the wake of legislation in the US and elsewhere to regulate Internet adult content. It offers a voluntary alternative reminiscent of the self-regulation and voluntarily-adopted rating system of the US movie industry. In a content community that is embroiled in controversy by the very nature of the adult content that it provides, the new top level domain offers an innovative alternative. For those who choose to participate, they can register in the TLD and adopt its rules – rules for labeling their content (so it can be both found and filtered), for participating through representatives and funding in a policy-making group, and for clearly identifying themselves and their materials. It is a bold, voluntary, innovative step – and as with ratings and other self-labeling programs before it, it is controversial. With this TLD, as with all new TLDs, the ICANN Board and the Internet community cannot know what will happen. We simply cannot predict whether it will succeed or fail or whether additional business and political uses may be added. But I do not think it is our job to predict. ICANN’s job is to establish a baseline of criteria for applications, evaluate the applications as to whether the criteria is met, and serve as neutral and objective a role as possible. Here the ICM Registry has operated in good faith. It submitted an application it felt met the criteria. Not only did it submit its own registry plans for review, but it added an additional structure as well. Called The Internet Foundation for Online Responsibility (IFFOR), IFFOR reinforces the ICM Registry’s commitment to develop a voluntary system of self-regulation. IFFOR brings together the sponsored community with a larger community of child advocates and free speech activists to develop policy and best practices in a unique global dialogue. I think IFFOR is a fascinating idea and one in which I would like to participate. The plans for the ICM Registry and IFFOR will be codified in contracts with ICANN. Overall, the ICM Registry presents just the type of innovative structures and vision we want for new top level domains. *IV. Are we scared of not having a crystal ball? * There are many predictions for how .XXX could be used, and misused, in the future. I cannot assess whether the predictions are correct or not – no one can. But is it the proper role of ICANN to do so? ICANN can set the precedent now that it need not have a crystal ball; it is not required to predict the future. Its job is to open up top level domain to those who meet its criteria. I hope ICANN will go on to end the artificial scarcity of the domain name space, and provide space for innovation and new communities in an array of languages and scripts. I support the creation not only of staid and easy TLDs, but ones that will be used for a variety of creative political and personal purposes. *V. A Modest Proposal * I propose we follow the UDRP model of years ago. The ICANN Board should adopt the ICM Registry application subject to resolution of some of the implementation details raised by members of the Registrar and Noncommercial Constituencies. Simultaneous with adoption, ICANN should create a fast-track process with dedicated staff to work through the implementation details and, meet, compromise, resolve the issues within the ICANN constituencies and move on. *Conclusion: * The world is watching, but not for the reasons we see voiced in the messages. Future applicants want to know – is the TLD space open? How difficult will it be to try to enter? How straightforward is the process? What ICANN does with the ICM Registry will convey a clear message to all applicants who follow. I join them in watching. |