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

[Milton Mueller]

A nice academic interpretation from 4,000 miles away. 

What you fail to take into account is the appointment of a new Deputy
Secty of Commerce. In my humble opinion, this wouldn't have happened if
a guy from Arlington TX with a Ph.D. from the Abilene Christian
University wasn't put into Ted Kassinger's place on July 22.  

What evidence is there for your interpretation? Read Gallagher's
letter. There is not a single reference to the concerns of other
governments.
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher-to-cerf-15aug05.pdf 

>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 08/16/05 4:28 PM >>>
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
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance