.XXX Approved

Wow. I just saw this tweet from the FSC,

“ICANN has approved .XXX sTLD.”

And a post in response is up at the FSC blog.

“Of course we are disappointed but we are not surprised by the ICANN Board’s decision.  As voiced in concerns by speakers at this very conference, the ICANN Board has dangerously undervalued the input from governments worldwide,” said FSC Executive Director Diane Duke. “Worse, they have disregarded overwhelming outpouring of opposition from the adult entertainment industry – the supposed sponsorship community – dismissing the interests of free speech on the Internet.”

But it goes on to say that the battle is not over.

Wow. I’m shocked and encourage you to read the FSC post on this. It truly is shocking! I will leave with Michael Whiteacre’s comment on the issue yesterday:

“In a day and age where governments around the world have demonstrated their willingness to flip the internet switch to ‘OFF’ when they don’t like the message, why, why, why is ICANN considering an action that would make it that much easier to censor a particular type of content?

Here’s some excellent commentary on ICANN and .XXX — it was posted in the comments section of a terrible, ass-sucking article by Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller (who jumped into the comment thread to attack the commenter).

The article took the position that governments, such as the US gov’t, should let ICANN be:

by annkuch February 5, 2011 4:14 AM EST

Normally, I would agree that limited government involvement in private enterprise is ideal. However, when a US non-profit with such an essential, international mission is as thoroughly mismanaged as ICANN is, then I do believe that the US government has an obligation to intervene and either end or limit the damage that is being done.

The Free Speech Coalition’s most recent letter to ICANN, GAC and the Department of Commerce is a perfect example of just how broken ICANN is . . . Diane Duke demonstrates that ICM has committed fraud in its application. She also points out that ICANN and GAC agree on a number of unresolvable objections to .xxx, yet, despite the evidence and objections provided, ICANN has decided that it would like to approve .xxx anyway.

Religious organizations and the adult entertainment industry have actually united in their opposition to .xxx–a union that I never thought possible. Literally dozens of nations are opposed to this application. The GAC has identified at least 5 problems with the application that they believe can not be overcome. The only people advocating for this application are those who stand to profit from it–the ICM Registry. Yet, ICANN insists upon moving ahead with contract negotiations.

If you are truly concerned about the strong hand of government and the censorship of the internet, then you would see the problem here. Before .xxx has even been approved, Senator Max Bachus has introduced legislation to mandate that all adult companied move from .com to .xxx. .xxx sites can then be easily censored by any government in the world. ICANN has been presented with a copy of this proposed legislation. They are well aware that their decision SHALL lead to censorship of the internet. Yet, for reasons and motives that have not yet been uncovered by the discovery process, ICANN insists on moving forward with this scam.

by miltonmueller February 7, 2011 5:11 PM EST

Are you interested in freedom of expression or simply in advancing your online porn clients’ interest in killing .xxx? If you were truly interested in the former, you wouldn’t be diverting attention away from an ugly and unprecedented attempt by the US Government to directly censor ALL domains in the world. You would, at the very least, express opposition to governmental review of new TLD applications in addition to your opposition to .xxx. But apparently, you think that a new and unprecedented form of direct censorship might be OK if it produces the result you want for one TLD. Shame on you! This is short-sighted and opportunistic. You have no business calling yourself a “free speech coalition.” You are about the business interests of the adult online sites who resent .xxx.

by annkuch February 8, 2011 6:23 AM EST

Wow! You are an academic? And the best that you can come up with is an argumentum ad hominem? Wow.

Well, let my begin by correcting some of your erroneous assumptions about me. First, I have no “clients.” Obviously, you assume that I am an attorney, which I am not. Second, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Free Speech Coalition. I have absolutely no affiliation with that organization.

I am, in fact, a lesbian academic who is extremely concerned with the precedent that will be set by .xxx–the floodgates of censorship that will be opened.

If you are finished playing the “let me guess who you are” game, I’d like to turn to the merits of the argument at hand. You claim that, if I were opposed to censorship, I would oppose US intervention in the domain name system. Yet another logical fallacy. This claim is based on the assumption that the US government is more censorious that ICANN. This is the point at which you and I disagree.

Let me see if I can explain it to you in simple language. If the US government says NO to .xxx and .gay (or any other controversial TLD), the speech of the adult entertainment community and the gay community will not be restricted or censored in any way. Those voices will continue to reside, freely and loudly, side by side with the broader internet community on gTLDs such as .com, .net, and .org. This free exchange of ideas and information is what we generally refer to as “free speech.” However, if ICANN says YES to .xxx or .gay, a number of countries will block those domains. This restriction of information and ideas is what we generally refer to as “censorship.”

So, in this particular context, a “no” vote (what everyone is referring to as a “veto”), is in reality, a vote for full integration and free speech. A “yes” vote is a vote for segregation and censorship.

Personally, I do not want ICANN banishing me to some WWII-style gay ghetto. Moreover, I do not want ICANN to prevent a Muslim lesbian from reading my erotica. And this is precisely what ICANN intends to do.

So, no–my argument does not pertain solely to the .xxx sponsored TLD; it applies to all proposed, controversial TLDs. I cite the .xxx example because I believe that it will set a precedence for future decisions.

On the personal side, you seem quite invested in the .xxx sponsored TLD. What exactly is your investment in the approval of this application?

I want to add one more thing. I believe the reason that there has been relatively little controversy about the .com, .org, and .net TLDs is because these TLDs draw a distinction and separate populations based on activity: communicating, organizing, and networking. If ICANN were to approve TLDs that identified the type of activity taking place, e.g. .shopping, .researching, .programming, etc., there would be little to no controversy.

However, as long as ICANN separates the internet based on identity group (.gay) or content (.xxx), this controversy will persist. We should not be separated by who we are or what we are saying. Instead, we should be separated by the way in which we intend to use the internet. I realize that this approach would limit ICANN’s profitability, but it would serve the best interest of the internet community as a whole.”

Comments