Opposed to Dot-XXX

["Tom Hymes" <tomhymes@xxxxxxx>]

To the ICANN Board of Directors, 



These comments are my own and utterly unaffiliated with the Free Speech 
Coalition or AVN, where, respectively, I sit on the Board and am employed as a 
writer. I oppose the approval of this application for numerous reasons, not the 
least of which is the fact that it has reached this point in its life through 
means of intimidation rather than by honestly convincing people that it has any 
raison d'etre. 

 

I must say, it is more than a little disconcerting to once again post up a 
comment regarding an application that, if there were any fairness in the world, 
would not still be before the ICANN Board, but as everyone who has been 
involved with this long running drama (i.e. farce) knows, the process has long 
since been hijacked by a determined and ruthless applicant who will go to just 
about any lengths to browbeat Board members and silence critics. 

 

That said, my own conclusion is that the fatal flaws in the sTLD application 
process over the years have been mostly due to its lack of transparency and the 
unfortunate decision to exclude the sponsor community from any direct role in 
the application process, and also the fact that ICANN's internal processes for 
determining the accuracy of claims made by applicants are insufficient, at 
best. 

 

In this particular instance, the very definition of the sponsored community has 
also been an ongoing point of contention, for good reason. The applicant's 
original definition, purposefully vague, was designed to bifurcate the industry 
and set its "group" apart by claiming it to be something-in this case, 
responsible-that it could not possibly be, since it did not already in fact 
exist. Others have mentioned this in relation to claims made by ICM regarding 
IFFOR, also for good reason. The illogic is astounding, as is the cynicism of 
the applicant's strategy. 

 

I sincerely hope that the Board also considers very seriously the problems this 
application has with respect to questions raised over the years by GAC, and 
that it will not decide that those issues have been solved. Turning a blind eye 
now will not make any of the problems go away, and will almost guaranteed that 
they are exacerbated. My presonal position is that the increase in nation 
state-imposed censorship argues strongly for not approving this application. I 
feel very strongly that sexual speech has become politically targeted speech, 
and that millions of people around the world would be at increased risk if 
ICANN especially does not take an active role in protecting their rights. I do 
not believe that any of that conflicts with also protecting the rights and 
safety of children and individuals who are vulnerable to sexual abuse of any 
kind. 



Sadly, these particular issues have become dangerously sidelined by the more 
self-centered goals of the applicant, whose blind determination to get what it 
wants at all costs has only made this exercise in my opinion all the more 
potentially dangerous. But it's not too late for the Board to look deeply 
within and make the right call. I strongly entreat it to once again, and 
finally, reject this application. 

 

Tom Hymes