discussion on xxx domain? [ncsg-policy] Draft NCSG comments to GNSO Council on Rec 6

[Dan Krimm]

Hi Caroline,

I'm sympathetic to many of your views generally (especially that there is
harm that can come of some x-rated content, though I believe there is
definitely a realm of x-rated content that does not necessarily constitute
"pornography" at least in some cultures [i.e., as long as participation is
entirely at the knowledgeable discretion of the participant -- not
everything erotic is pornographic in all cultures or subcultures] -- but we
are utterly not going to resolve that question here!), but I think maybe
you ask too much of ICANN per se as a governing body.

I'm dubious of the idea of defining a single global governing body that has
real jurisdiction over content on the Internet, and I don't think ICANN
should be any such body or have any such jurisdiction.  I would make every
attempt to push such matters completely out of ICANN's consideration,
specifically because it will not be capable of arriving at a resolution
that is acceptable to all societies/governments/cultures.

ICANN emerged as a purely technical-standards organization, dedicated to
preventing the Internet from breaking in a technical sense.  The very idea
that all of these post-technical considerations should get into the
discussion of DNS at all is one that many members of NCUC (and now NCSG)
have been opposing since its inception.

The debate about .xxx has been multifaceted, but if there is a "legitimate"
point of entry I think it has been whether "xxx" itself as a *character
string* is "offensive" (completely separate from the question of what the
*use* of the TLD might be).  I am with the camp that considers a TLD per se
(as a character string) to be treated not as a "message" but as an
"address" only.  What happens at that address is a separate issue, and one
that I would like to see ICANN avoid getting involved with if at all
possible.

If individual governments or communities want to deal with a .xxx TLD in a
restrictive manner, that is their business and I'm not sure I have a clear
opinion on it, myself.  But I sure don't want a "consensus content policy"
to be defined according to a least common denominator (LCD).  For example,
I don't want repressive authoritarian governments to set standards for
political speech, and I don't want extreme fundamentalist religious
institutions to set standards for moral speech, etc.

But most of all, I don't want ICANN to get involved in matters of speech at
all, partly because of the threat that it could lead to exactly the LCD
standards noted just above (not to mention trademark issues which I also
think should be none of ICANN's business, aside from explicitly defining
the matter as outside its jurisdiction, perhaps providing protocols that
point to legitimate jurisdictions for addressing trademark disputes).

So of the two choices you offer at the end, below, I would gravitate toward
the latter, except that I wouldn't support the idea of a *single*
"structure that WILL be concerned with content on the web" but rather allow
that to continue to be distributed among the various sovereign
jurisdictions.  At best, I could see some sort of umbrella institution that
allows these various jurisdictions to communicate with each other in a
coordinated fashion, without taking any "meta-jurisdiction" over them,
other than to set rules of discourse and engagement when discussing content
issues.

If at some point in the fantasy future we end up without separate nations
in a single global government with unified global jurisdiction over
everything, perhaps there will be some unified structure to deal with this
stuff, but I see no reason to put the cart before the horse here.  Let that
happen first before we start creating ad hoc global structures with any
real clout to address the parameters of speech on this communication
platform.

The danger that many have seen here with ICANN is that some narrow
interests will seek to use ICANN to take control over content policy
(whether it has to do with "morality and order" or trademark disputes)
*without* a genuinely representative and accountable governance structure,
both in principle and in practice.  Personally, I am very dubious that
ICANN can construct a governance structure with the requisite
representational breadth and equity to do justice to any consideration of
content issues on the Internet.

I vote for keeping ICANN's jurisdiction as purely technically-focused as
possible.  The fact that there is any confusion on this subject at all is a
reflection of the efforts of entities that wish to involve ICANN in
content-related issues (perhaps to hijack its loose governance processes to
their narrow agendas), and the failure of those in opposition to completely
push back at this encroachment over the lifetime of ICANN's existence.
That's why this issue remains an ongoing debate at ICANN.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



At 6:56 PM +0100 1/15/11, InternationalParents wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>
>Glad to see those chiming in to approve of the debate, I didn't realize
>this would ensue and I'm sorry if I offended some.
>
>Sorry for what was called "sexism" guys, it certainly was not personal
>given I dont know you in person!
>
>I'm just a believer in facts and had noticed consumers (and producers) of
>porn were predominantly male.
>
>No judgement, just a fact that may have an influence on a man's view of
>things, was my only point...
>
>
>At least Dwi and I agree :
>
>
>Make the Internet Miror Society, not Impose its Views on it
>
>
>> I support the view the Internet miror a specific culture's society and
>>not the
>
>libertarian views of some, many of whom hail from my nevertheless beloved
>
>San Francisco,  California.
>
>
>> And in today's western societies, to take an example, porn is NOT
>>accessible to all but
>
>placed in certain areas where normally, only adults can access it.
>
>
>Therefore an imposed .xxx domain name is, for me, the appropriate societal
>approach for western civilizations to take:
>
>
>> This approach PROTECTS the young and those who have a true disgust for
>>such, more than animal-like,
>
> actually un-natural and prowess-oriented displays of sexual behaviour,
>
>
>> In addition to giving a RECOGNIZED avenue to publish and consume such
>>material, since its legal in those societies.
>
>
>I think other cultures should have their own rule.
>
>
>On Freedom and Governance of the web:
>
>
>> I understand the goal of openness and the beauty of the Web thanks to
>>this openness.  It seems to me to be more and
>
>more jeopardized, not by some .XXX domain name but by the corporate and
>western civilization takeover of .brandname extensions
>
>and the arbitration process.
>
>
>As the Internet grows and matures, what worked when western countries and
>an elite were part of it will not function when
>
>the masses, 3 year olds, China, India, Africa and others are part of it.
>
>
>It has to grow up and accept some compromises in " freedom ", some much
>stronger governance and accept there may be separate,
>
>multiple Webs with different "laws".
>
>
>ICANN will either have to:
>
>-  morph into a multinational, elected, publicly accountable governing
>body concerned with content,
>
>- or see the emergence of another structure that WILL be concerned with
>content on the web, leaving it to be the technical
>
>arm of that governing body.
>
>
>
>I believe the NCUC can represent diverse points of view on issues, given
>its huge cultural diversity and that having a monolithic
>
>view would even be strange.   Now I didnt say that was easy to manage and
>that I did very much to help, even though I have a strong interest in
>
>doing so...;-)
>
>
>Best',
>
>
>Caroline
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Le 15 janv. 11 à 06:02, Dwi Elfrida Martina S a écrit :
>
>>Dear Caroline,
>>
>>I am totally agree with you. as woman I feel that my my identity, my
>>pride, my price decrease to the lowest level, when I saw another woman
>>explore their sexuality in internet.sometimes I feel that woman in the
>>porn site is not different with animal, even animal can do better than
>>human, animal still keep their sex activity in good order, keep it as
>>intimacy and private right and never explore it through internet.
>>
>>nevertheless, when I say that I'll support .xxx as legal TLD for porn
>>site, because I think it will be used as central for porn sites,so easier
>>to control dissemination of pornography through internet.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>
>>Dwi
>>
>>
>>>Dear Nuno,
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe not, but I do think your views that one should not take a moral
>>>stand on pornography or anything else are-
>>>
>>>and you in all honesty allude to that-  tainted by who you are, and
>>>probably by the fact you're a man.
>>>
>>>
>>>You don't feel it in your guts like I may, as a woman, that it
>>>actually is a violation of the bill of rights the way women ( AND MEN
>>>actually!)
>>>
>>>are treated and portrayed in pornographic material and the impact
>>>such material has on those viewing it,
>>>
>>>especially those with psychological difficulties, not to mention kids!
>>>
>>>
>>>At some point, not seeing it as a problem that this material is
>>>freely accessible to anyone in the name of ' moral neutrality' is
>>>equal to
>>>
>>>endorsing free access to this controversial material.
>>>
>>>>Pretending domain names do NOT have a moral, political and
>>>>
>>>sociological impact is akin to digging your head in the sand.
>>>
>>>>Pretending education will suffice to offset this unlimited freedom
>>>>
>>>of publishing online material is naive.
>>>
>>>
>>>Otherwise why not give us all guns to defend ourselves, just in
>>>case,  and just educate us all NOT to use them to kill
>>>
>>>those we dont get along with?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I feel there should be a .xxx extension, and that all porn should be
>>>made to use that and only that, by law,
>>>
>>>just the way this material is not accessible to all in the physical
>>>world.
>>>
>>>Make the techies make that possible, dont let them tell us it's not "
>>>technically feasible" just because they dont care about
>>>
>>>controling access to it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Best'
>>>
>>>Caroline
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Le 14 janv. 11 à 10:49, Nuno Garcia a écrit :
>>>
>>>>I hope that in the end I do not sound like a Hulstler or Playboy
>>>>stockholder or subscriber (I am neither of these), but this is
>>>>really what I believe in, and probably my opinion is relevant for
>>>>the mailing list.
>>>>
>>>>On 14 January 2011 03:00, Dwi Elfrida Martina S
>>>><<mailto:dwi.elfrida at depkominfo.go.id>dwi.elfrida at depkominfo.go.id> wrote:
>>>>hi rudy,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>(snipped)
>>>>
>>>>I agree with you, there is no country who already TOTALLY success
>>>>to do
>>>>process 'filter'. But, still we have to do our best to place
>>>>"pornography"
>>>>in good order, means there is certain regulation, term & condition.
>>>>so, we
>>>>can protect country from decreasing of morality:)
>>>>
>>>>As I think we have made clear from previous statements, Morality
>>>>(as well as public order) ARE NOT an issue that concerns this
>>>>constituency and these considerations should therefore be left out
>>>>of discussion and encouraged to be left of all the discussions in
>>>>ICANN.
>>>>
>>>>(long parenthesis: I'm sure Dwi was formulating a wish for its own
>>>>country, and it this case, it's perfectly ok to do so. I must
>>>>recall the list that Morality is an extremelly complex issue, much
>>>>more than paedophilia, which is generally defined as crime in most
>>>>western and southern countries, but, in contrast, it is indulged by
>>>>some other countries (e.g. asian), and was not at all a crime
>>>>before 1950 in most of the countries I know. When these issues dig
>>>>deep in our cultural backgrounds and in our religious or belief
>>>>points of view, it is best to rely on the system of values that we
>>>>know is transversal to all Mankind and are best described in the
>>>>Charter for Human Rights, that I think best summarizes the values
>>>>we must guide for. End of long parenthesis.)
>>>>
>>>>In conclusion, and having the Charter for Human Rights as a working
>>>>bench, I say that the arguments for discussing this or that issue
>>>>(but not for the .XXX which is long due), should never be issues on
>>>>liberty, or censorship, let alone competencies or policies for
>>>>governments.
>>>>
>>>>We, as an informed and knowledgeable community, must put forward
>>>>our opinions having in view the larger and greater good of our
>>>>fellow Internet users, oblivious to where they sit in working days
>>>>or in holidays or in Holy days. All of us deserve an Internet that
>>>>_does_ _not_ _limit_ our rights as persons and promotes the values
>>>>engraved in the Charter for Human Rights.
>>>>
>>>>We cannot say much regarding the different civilizational issues of
>>>>different countries. For me, I know that in my country we still
>>>>have a long way to go. But this is my belief, probably some of my
>>>>fellow citizens do not agree with me, and therefore this is not an
>>>>issue to discuss here.
>>>>
>>>>I have the greatest of respects for all cultures, religions and
>>>>civilizations, and I try hard to not let my personal beliefs to
>>>>stand in the way of my professional beliefs, so I expect others to
>>>>do the same.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, I stand perfectly aware that, as Ortega y Gasset once
>>>>said, I am myself and my circumstance, and thus my points of view
>>>>will always be tainted by the fact that I was born and raised here.
>>>>
>>>>So to conclude, for me the purpose of this constituency is not to
>>>>place pornography or capitalism or comunism or _______ (fill in
>>>>with you word of choice) into order.
>>>>
>>>>It is to make sure that we provide ICANN with valueable and wise
>>>>opinions. And we should do our best to do so. For our own good and
>>>>the benefit of all mankind.
>>>>
>>>>I leave you all with two thoughts, one from Ben Franklin who once
>>>>said "He who gives up a liberty to achieve a temporary security
>>>>deserves neither and will loose both" (and there are plenty of
>>>>historical examples of this), and the other, from a greek
>>>>philosopher whose name I cannot remember "the best way to prevent a
>>>>damage to society is to educate the children".
>>>>
>>>>With my personal and sincere excuses if my points of view have
>>>>offended anyone (was not my intention), I wish you all a nice week
>>>>end,
>>>>
>>>>Nuno Garcia
>>>>
>>>
>>>Frenchparents.net - Bilingual online community in San Francisco
>>><http://www.frenchparents.net>http://www.frenchparents.net
>>>
>>>InternationalParents - Social network in 30 cities worldwide
>>>Le premier réseau international des familles futées
>>>The first international network for smart parents
>>><http://www.internationalparents.net>http://www.internationalparents.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>Frenchparents.net - Bilingual online community in San Francisco
>
><http://www.frenchparents.net>http://www.frenchparents.net
><http://www.frenchparents.net>
>
>InternationalParents - Social network in 30 cities worldwide
>Le premier réseau international des familles futées
>The first international network for smart parents
><http://www.internationalparents.net/beta>http://www.internationalparents.net/beta