[Expression] [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
froomkin at law.miami.edu
Tue Apr 3 22:40:20 EDT 2007
Would .xxx really have rejected a site that just had flowers? (I haven't
read the recent proposals - this isn't a rhetorical question.) My
understanding had been that while they would advertise a certain kind of
content, they wouldn't forbid others -- they'd take your money quite
happily. But if I'm wrong about that -- if they would actually block
non-porn -- then I think I understand what you mean.
But even so, I still don't quite grasp how to approach your rule in light
of the many prosals that have been in the pipeline.
would .tel be out? .geo? (I think yes for both, but I'm not sure.)
I suppose I could live with this sort of distinction although I don't at
all get why it is attractive as compared to letting a 1000 flowers (er,
TLDs) bloom...
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Andrew McLaughlin wrote:
> What content restriction does .com impose on speech expressed via
> second-level domains under .com?
>
> The idea of .xxx is that content communicated via servers bearing .xxx
> DNS labels will be sexually explicit. That makes .xxx a
> content-specific label, and therefore bad (IMHO). DNS registries
> should always be agnostic to content.
>
> Don't confuse content-specific speech labels with identity-specific
> registration requirements, i.e.:
>
> - what is said (e.g., .xxx site = porn)
> vs.
> - who is the registrant (e.g., .museum registrant = a museum)
>
> The second is still content-neutral: a museum can send porn via a
> .museum-labelled server, if it wants.
>
> My concern is to keep all DNS registries away from the business of
> acting as a label for content; it's fine with me if they serve as a
> label of registrant identity (i.e., only museums, only coops, only
> Ghana residents). That's because there are many open options
> available to all registrants; the battle is to keep the DNS from
> becoming a tool of censorship, whether well-meaning or nefarious.
> Governments cannot be trusted not to attempt to zone speech via DNS,
> and so all DNS registries should be kept strictly content-neutral to
> make that outcome even less feasible and likely.
>
> So personally, I don't care why or how ICANN rejected the proposal; I
> just think mixing content and DNS label is bad.
>
> (All power to shields, Mr. Chekov! All hands brace for impact!)
>
> --andrew
>
>
> On 4/3/07, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> <froomkin at law.miami.edu> wrote:
>> so ".com" is bad? It's not "content neutral" after all.
>>
>> I gather only semantically meaningless suffixes (like ".iii") would pass
>> this very stiff test?
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Andrew McLaughlin wrote:
>>
>> > I'm saying ICANN should reject any TLD that is not content-neutral,
>> regardless of what the content is. .xxx would not be content-agnostic, and
>> so should be rejected (IMHO). I fear the consequences if governments get
>> the idea that the DNS can be used to label and control content.
>> >
>> > --andrew
>> >
>> > -----
>> > andrew mclaughlin
>> > google inc.
>> > mclaughlin at google.com
>> > +1.650.253.6035
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Robin Gross
>> > To: Andrew McLaughlin
>> > CC: Vittorio Bertola; governance at lists.cpsr.org;
>> expression at ipjustice.org; NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>> > Sent: Tue Apr 03 15:01:46 2007
>> > Subject: Re: [Expression] [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of
>> Censorship in Domain Names
>> >
>> > Hi Andrew,
>> >
>> > I'm having a hard time understanding how you can say ICANN should keep
>> > the "top level content-neutral and strictly divorced from
>> > content-specific rules" while also arguing that ICANN should prevent
>> > .xxx because of its content.
>> >
>> > Do you agree that ICANN should be content-neutral or do you believe
>> > ICANN should make policies based on content?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Robin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Andrew McLaughlin wrote:
>> >
>> >> FWIW (i.e., not much), I agree with Vittorio. To call this decision
>> >> "censorship" degrades the meaning of that term. The fact that there
>> >> is no .abortion TLD doesn't in any way limit the ability of any
>> >> Internet speaker to voice an opinion about abortion. To the extent
>> >> that DNS labeling is important, second- and third- and fourth level
>> >> labels -- abortion.example.com -- are always available.
>> >>
>> >> IMHO, free expression is much more threatened by content-specific TLD
>> >> labels, all of which ICANN would be smart to reject. Rather than give
>> >> restrictive governments and ISPs new tools for censorship of the real
>> >> kind, ICANN should keep the DNS at the top level content-neutral and
>> >> strictly divorced from content-specific rules.
>> >>
>> >> Susan's dissent is unconvincing because it ignores the second-order
>> >> consequences of using the DNS as a designation of content. It's the
>> >> wrong road to go down.
>> >>
>> >> --andrew
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 4/3/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Robin Gross ha scritto:
>> >>>> From my cyberlaw blog:
>> >>>> http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann_board_votexxx
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, once in a lifetime, we disagree completely :-)
>> >>>
>> >>> I have had the luck to witness personally the last three months of
>> >>> discussions in the ICANN Board. So, believe it or not, your
>> >>> interpretation of the reasons and the value of this vote is IMHO quite
>> >>> wrong. Let me explain.
>> >>>
>> >>> First of all, ICANN had a process for TLD applications (which,
>> >>> incidentally, is quite a bad process, starting from the meaningless
>> >>> "sponsorship" idea, but that's what we had at the moment), and the vote
>> >>> was meant to judge whether the application meant the requirements.
>> There
>> >>> was no discussion on whether "adult entertainment" is good or bad or
>> >>> whether it should be censored. There was, however, discussion on
>> whether
>> >>> the criteria were met; some directors thought they were, most thought
>> >>> they weren't. That's how the vote went. Susan and another director -
>> not
>> >>> even all the five who voted against rejection - apparently assumed that
>> >>> those who disagreed with them did so due to political pressure or
>> desire
>> >>> for censorship. This was entirely their assumption and many of the
>> >>> others felt personally offended by it.
>> >>>
>> >>> Even if you forget about the process and think about the idea in
>> itself,
>> >>> it looks like a bad idea. Adult entertainment sites do not want to be
>> >>> labelled, exactly because they are afraid of being censored; many of
>> >>> them - basically all, according to some's judgement; for example, there
>> >>> was no single adult webmaster speaking in support of .xxx in the entire
>> >>> meeting - made it clear that they'd not have used the new domain. So
>> the
>> >>> only purpose for this domain would have been defensive registrations,
>> >>> e.g. transfering money from consumers to the company who would have run
>> >>> it. Personally - and especially given that I represent consumers on the
>> >>> ICANN Board - I think that this would have been publicly detrimental.
>> >>>
>> >>> Then, let's discuss about "censorship". I think that the statement that
>> >>> not approving .xxx is "content-related censorship" is impossible to
>> take
>> >>> seriously. You write:
>> >>>
>> >>>> By voting to turn down the .XXX
>> >>>> application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated it will go
>> >>>> beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to decide
>> >>> what
>> >>>> ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name space.
>> >>>
>> >>> Do you seriously mean that since there is no .xxx there is no porn over
>> >>> the Internet?
>> >>>
>> >>> Actually, if .xxx had been approved, then many governments could have
>> >>> passed laws to force porn sites into it, thus actually making
>> censorship
>> >>> easier. The only reply I got to this observation was "yes, but in the
>> US
>> >>> we have the First Amendment that would make it impossible". And what
>> >>> about the rest of the world?
>> >>>
>> >>> All in all, of course there are sociopolitical aspects in some of the
>> >>> decisions that ICANN has to take. Even refusing to consider these
>> >>> aspects, and embracing the hyper-liberalistic, totally free market
>> >>> approach of approving each and every application for a new TLD no
>> matter
>> >>> how controversial it is, which you and others seem to advocate, is a
>> >>> political choice. It's way too common to hide behind memes such as "it
>> >>> should be a technical decision only" or "let the market decide", but
>> >>> these are political choices as well, with lots of implications. I am
>> >>> surprised by how so many brilliant people from the liberal US
>> >>> environment seem unable to accept diversity on this issue, to the point
>> >>> of questioning the legitimacy or good faith of decisions when they go
>> in
>> >>> a different direction.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'll stop here, pointing at the comment I left on Susan's blog -
>> >>>
>> http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/3/30/2845638.html#882501
>> >>>
>> >>> - for further consideration about the "cultural diversity" issue.
>> >>>
>> >>> Ciao,
>> >>> --
>> >>> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <--------
>> >>> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>
>> >>> You are subscribed as: %(user_address)s
>> >>>
>> >>> To be removed from this list send an email to
>> >>> Expression-request at ipjustice.org with the subject "unsubscribe" and
>> >>> you will be removed.
>> >>>
>> >>> Or - click on this:
>> >>> mailto:Expression-request at ipjustice.org?subject=unsubscribe
>> >>>
>> >>> To change your options:
>> >>> %(user_optionsurl)s
>> >>>
>> >>> Expression mailing list
>> >>> Expression at ipjustice.org
>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/expression
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> >
>> > You are subscribed as: %(user_address)s
>> >
>> > To be removed from this list send an email to
>> Expression-request at ipjustice.org with the subject "unsubscribe" and you
>> will be removed.
>> >
>> > Or - click on this:
>> > mailto:Expression-request at ipjustice.org?subject=unsubscribe
>> >
>> > To change your options:
>> > %(user_optionsurl)s
>> >
>> > Expression mailing list
>> > Expression at ipjustice.org
>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/expression
>> >
>>
>> --
>> http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
>> A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm
>> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
>> +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
>> -->It's warm here.<--
>>
>
>
>
--
http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's warm here.<--
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list