[governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall-and the destruction of ICANN's integrity

Tue Aug 16 16:28:57 EDT 2005

Hi,

I agree with Milton's concerns but would offer just one small amendment to
his explanation.  While right wing politics within the US are indeed a
driving factor, international considerations may play a larger supporting
role here than he suggests.  It's really a perfect storm, game
theoretically a case of harmony.  Many governments want to express
righteous indignation, nobody can lose, their silence prior when it was
raised in ICANN notwithstanding (one almost wonders if they were actually
asleep at the wheel then, or were waiting to play a more clever game). 
Now with the WGIG/WSIS process going on, XXX has become the supposed
poster child example of a system run amuck and in need of greater
government oversight. It was invoked repeatedly at WGIG release event. 
And given its own domestic scene, the US government is willing to hand
governments a symbolic victory and nominally demonstrate a new
responsiveness to global concerns---convenient timing since it refuses to
consider more substantive changes.  Apparently there is no major worry
about setting precedents and compromising ICANN's position.

There's a couple of ways to read this.  Not entirely obvious who's being
clever or daft.

Best,

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 6:07 PM
> To: ewan at intug.net
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall- andthe
> destruction of ICANN's integrity
>
>
> Ewan:
> Thanks for your comment. Speaking as someone with a 20+ year background
> in public policy, I can say that this is not about "public policy," its
> about political exploitation of symbolism, and about incompetent and
> arbitrary political interventions. More seriously, it is about the
> subordination of _global_ TLD delegation processes to the domestic
> politics of the US. If you have no objection to that, bless you for your
> serenity! But I'd encourage you to stand aside and let those of us who
> have to deal with the dire consequences of what is happening do their
> work.
>
> You may not know enough about the situation (I have never seen you at
> an ICANN meeting) to know just how completely fake GAC's call for "more
> time" is. The xxx TLD proposal was all over the US and international
> media in 2004. It was on the Today show in 2004, in a debate with
> Morality in Media. ICM Registry offered to make a full presentation of
> the proposal to GAC in Dec. 2004 (the Capetown meeting). It also took a
> delegation for a full presentation to Board in Mar del Palta in  April
> 2005,  and offered the same presentation to GAC. In both cases, GAC
> refused to take the time to listen.
>
> AFTER the decision was made, some GAC members expressed objections
> during ICANN's Luxembourg meeting -- but they were basically laughed out
> of court for their negligence and incompetence. No vote was taken, no
> resolution passed. It was only with the arrival of a new Commerce Dept.
> officer in late July that Commerce changed its mind. That means what we
> have always feared: the USG dictates what happens in ICANN.
>
> Do you think that is the right way to make Internet policy? I mean,
> from a process point of view, do you really believe that the public's
> and even business interests are served when one political appointee in
> Washington can reverse a 5-year global deliberation process that cost
> the applicants millions? What would your buisiness telecom user
> constituents do if something like that happened to one of their
> applications for a license?
>
> More importantly, do you really think the registration and use of a
> domain name is something that governments, in their capacity as arbiters
> of "public policy," ought to have unlimited authority to reverse on any
> grounds, at any time, based on whoever lobbies them the hardest? Do you
> believe in freedom of expression? Do you understand the linkage here
> between free expression on the Internet and the capacity to have TLDs
> delegated in an impartial, content-neutral manner? Do you think that If
> I can generate 6000 angry letters to the US Commerce Department about
> intug.net, say because I think you are all a bunch of evil capitalists
> or non-muslim infidels or white males, or gays, or whatever (I am just
> joking here, obviously) that someone should have the power to yank that
> domain away from you, regardless of costs? Because that is all that is
> happening here. Its censorship and cultural oppression, home brewed in
> the USA.
>
> Of course the definition of pornography varies from country to country.
> But so what? If the sites under .xxx don't meet some countries exclusion
> standards then they are no worse off than they are now. Be serious. Do
> you think David Sampson or Family Research Council wants to have a
> serious and searching debate about how porn might be defined and applied
> to web content globally? That's crazy. They want to smash .xxx to
> convince their constituents that they are being righteous. that's all.
> Please don't dignify this with any sober rationalizations.
>
> >>> "Ewan SUTHERLAND" <ewan at intug.net> 08/16/05 10:47 AM >>>
> I am not sure I agree. First anyone who saw this proposal and had any
> background in public policy realised it was liable to explode at some
> point. Second, it does not identify pornography, since the definition
> is
> highly variable between countries and cultures. Maybe a triple-X.US
> might have worked, but even then it might be different in NY state and
> Mississippi. There are two boundary lines here, one is what is
> insufficiently "exciting" to be included and what is so objectionable
> to
> be excluded, both are highly variable and dependent.
>
> I think many governments are unhappy with this, not just the USG. I
> would not criticise GAC for warning ICANN.
>
> Sensibly, ICANN ought to have buried the proposal.
>
> Ewan
>
>
> > Many of us have warned for years that the US's unilateral political
> > power over ICANN was a problem. Too many people didn't listen. Now
> that
> > power is being displayed and used in a way that even the most abject
> > apologists for the system cannot deny.
> >
> > Over the weekend ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee transmitted
> a
> > letter asking ICANN to reverse its decision to approve the .xxx TLD.
> A
> > letter from the US Commerce Dept supporting that request has also
> been
> > filed.
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher-to-cerf-15aug05.pdf
> >
> >
> > I believe it is essential that NCUC, ALAC and WSIS civil society
> join
> > together in a resolution or letter to ICANN, its GAC and the US
> Commerce
> > department expressing concern over and opposition to the GAC's
> attempt
> > to reverse the .xxx delegation.
> >
> > What is at stake here is the very model of the Internet as a private
> > sector and civil society-driven institution, and as an INTERNATIONAL
> > institution. This is not about .xxx per se. (although it should be
> noted
> > that all .xxx proposes to do is openly and accurately identify porn
> on
> > the Internet, which is in every legitimate user's interest.  The
> > creation of a .xxx TLD does not CREATE pornography, which we all know
> is
> > already out there.)
> >
> > The decision by the US to exercise in an unambiguous way its
> unilateral
> > power over ICANN has been made in a surprising context. But I have
> > checked the facts and there is no doubt about it. The US Commerce
> > Department's Deputy Secretary David A. Sampson, confirmed by the
> Senate
> > July 22, is responsible for the sudden decision of the US to support
> the
> > GAC's attack on ICANN's delegation process. Sampson was influenced
> by
> > the Family Research Council, a culturally conservative religious
> group
> > in the US, which made it an issue. Sampson is a graduate of David
> > Lipscomb University , the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
> and
> > earned his doctorate at Abilene Christian University.
> > http://www.commerce.gov/bios/sampson_bio.htm
> >
> > ICANN participants must stand up for the integrity of the
> institution
> > as a global, legitimate policy making system. One government cannot
> be
> > given an arbitrary and unlimited power to reverse the result of a
> > decision making process that has gone on for five years and consumed
> > millions of dollars in resources, just because a domestic political
> > constituency doesn't like the result.
> >
> > If this recall is allowed to go forward unchallenged, governments
> will
> > have asserted and gained a form of arbitrary power over the Internet
> at
> > its very core. ICANN's often flawed attempt to be a bottom-up
> > organization will be completely defeated, forever. This is a very
> > important issue. It is essential for ALAC, NCUC and other civil
> society
> > actors to unite on this.
> >
> > I will be drafting a proposed short resolution. I hope to transmit
> it
> > to these lists soon.
> >
> >
> > Dr. Milton Mueller
> > Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> > http://www.digital-convergence.org
> > http://www.internetgovernance.org

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance