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

[Carlton Samuels]

+1

Carlton

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, 5:11 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/20240418/4f4f6396/attachment.html>