+1 Carlton On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, 5:11 pm Evan Leibovitch via CPWG, <cpwg@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-p...> 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@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.