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

[Evan Leibovitch]

Hi Bill,

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 1:26 PM Bill Jouris <b_jouris at yahoo.com> wrote:


> In response to your question:
> To what extent should ALAC be serving as ICANN's process police?
> I think the answer should be: "To the extent that the failure to follow
> ICANN's process in a particular instance had a negative impact on end
> users."
>

I agree.

But Alan's comment -- with which I also agree -- suggests that ICM's change
requests were mostly reasonable, and generally bring .XXX to be consistent
with other gTLDs that did not have to go through ICM's
needlessly-extraordinary approval process.

So in this case, the correct result happened but (if indeed process abuse
took place) came about in an incorrect way. The OUTCOME of all this,
process abuse or not, did not have a negative impact on end-users. Indeed I
would assert that the impact is positive. Most of the public just sees the
end result: reasonable changes to the renewed contract. Only insiders are
aware that the way it was done was not strictly kosher.

Based on your answer, then, this is not an instance where At-Large's
intervention is warranted because there is no negative impact based on the
outcomes. It is up to ICANN and ICM's peers to determine whether any breach
of process was serious enough to warrant consequences. Now, if end users
are impacted by any judgment that ICANN may assess as a result of ICM
infractions, then ALAC response might be appropriate. But no such action to
date has been taken.


> In the cases here, the contract requirements which were not followed were,
> if I understand correctly, intended to protect end users.
>

Which ones were they? I didn't see any in Michael's presentation.

>From my PoV, the extraordinary requirements had nothing to do with
protection of the public. In my analysis they were intended to establish
.XXX being the primary collection of content seen by some as objectionable,
that could then be easily mass-blocked by censor-minded entities. I
personally consider facilitation of blocking ANY part of the Internet well
beyond ICANN's mandate, and I welcome any moves that render .XXX to be Just
Another gTLD.

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20240421/264f4d27/attachment.html>