[CPWG] On adult websites, inertia, and basic fairness

[Evan Leibovitch]

Hi all,

On Wednesday, among other topics was a presentation suggesting the position
that ALAC should take regarding renewal of the contract for the .XXX TLD.

The presentation offered was a dissection of the substance of changes
proposed by the ICM registry for its new contract. Responses to the
assertion that the CPWG was engaging in mission-creep were, IMO, confused
and disturbing.

Some of the counter-arguments made were that the registry was reneging on
previous commitments and that it was somehow breaking the rules.

Now, if during the run of its contract to date the registry did not keep
true to its commitments, that is a serious issue and, as Carlton said in
the call, as much a matter for ICANN compliance as for the registry. But
that's not what was presented. What I saw was the registry taking the
opportunity of the contract renewal to request a change in its terms and it
is totally legitimate of them to do so. This renegotiation, on its face, is
not an abuse of process, but exactly how the process is supposed to work.

If the concern is that ICM has proposed contract changes, especially to
remove safeguards, then let's examine those requests on their merits, and
*strictly* through the lens of end-user impact.

Specifically, I find the notion that provisions in the previous contract
that are the subject of change request should be rejected primarily because
they existed in the previous contract is ... ill-considered. "Because we've
always done things that way" is broadly considered to be a dangerous
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeslacouncil/2019/01/28/the-most-dangerous-phrase-in-business-weve-always-done-it-this-way/>
and
regressive basis for decision-making.

If there is a change request that specifically impacts end-users,
absolutely bring it forward. I found little of that, mainly because there
was such a broad scattering of out-of-scope complaints that legitimate ones
were surely buried. Complaining that the registry wants to enable the use
of the TLD by registrants that are not part of the adult industry, for
instance, does not serve the interest of end-users. That is a choice for
would-be registrants to make.

The approach taken demonstrates quite well the mission-creep pervasive
within ALAC and this committee. Such overreach reflects poorly on us and
diminishes the likelihood that our advice will be heeded. Legitimate
concerns risk being rejected alongside the extraneous ones.

Recall that this is a particular case of a TLD application made under very
charged and political circumstances. I was at the 2011 San Francisco
meeting where it was up for delegation and saw the street protests
up-close. And while ICANN likes to say that it doesn't
regulate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcontract based on content, any controversy about
.XXX at the time concerned nothing EXCEPT content. As a result I'm not
surprised if the registry had to make extraordinary promises that have
proven to be unsustainable in the dozen years that have passed.

And now we have the benefit of hindsight. As it turns out, .XXX did not
become the porn ghetto whose mass-blockage could keep the Internet clean by
decree. A survey of the industry today reveals that NONE, not one, of the
top 20 adult Internet destinations worldwide use .XXX.

As a consequence, the singling out of .XXX for attention regarding sexual
or child exploitation (etc), and insisting that it meet requirements not
demanded of TLDs where the actual adult industry can be found, is the
height of hypocrisy and political posturing. Either let's advocate to raise
the mandatory standards of other TLDs to those demanded of .XXX, or allow
it to relax its standards to the levels of other TLDs.

What was ultimately most noteworthy to me about the debate was the use of
"trust" to justify both the hypocrisy and the resistance to change. Indeed,
this weaponization of "trust" on display was more obscene than anything
found in the websites under .XXX. But that's a separate topic, best kept
for another day.

Cheers,
Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20240418/ddd3cb78/attachment.html>