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

[Alan Greenberg]

I was not on the call on Wednesday and have not listened to the recording.

However I was on previous calls and was particularly vocal, so let me say
what I think are (or were?) the issues.

The world has moved on since .xxx had to make all of its commitments to
(narrowly) get approved. Other 2012-round adult registries exist that did
not have to jump though the same hurdles. So the changes by-and-large are
probably reasonable.

What is less reasonable is that many of the changes have already been put
in place without going through the proper (RSEP) processes to change
registry conditions and apparently (to be verified) this was done with no
action from compliance. Moreover, putting these new terms in a renewed
contract is effectively rewarding the registry for ignoring the rules and
that is a scary precedent in that they will no longer be answerable to
their apparent prior contract violations.

There are (at least) two separate issues at play here, and it is important
to keep them separate.

I will listen to the regording when I have the time and see how the
discussion evolved in my absence.

Alan



On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 6:11 PM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20240418/2d5dc0b1/attachment-0001.html>