more on Bush administration asks for halt to .xxx domain [fs] [based on 6000 letter indeed djf]

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Karl Auerbach <karl () cavebear com>
Date: August 16, 2005 5:07:00 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Bush administration asks for halt to .xxx  
domain [fs] [based on 6000 letter indeed djf]
Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl () cavebear com>



On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, David Farber wrote:


> From: Richard Perlman <perl () lucent com>


> Michael Gallagher could ask, as can any person, agency, ngo, etc.,  
> to have
> its views and requests considered.  However, as the real owner of  
> the Domain
> Name system the DoC could possibly exert political pressure on ICANN.

A few comments.

First. ICANN is hardly open to comments.  When I was on the board,  
comments were rarely, if ever, propagated by staff to the board.  And  
in those rare occassions when that happened, it was done in the form  
of a very short and very unbalanced summary that was written to favor  
the staff's position.  The secrecy of ICANN's operations masks the  
way that ICANN's staff runs the show while the emasculated board  
quietly assents.

Second. ICANN has eliminated the public from its processes and handed  
ICANN's decision-making over to a few selected industrial groups that  
it euphemistically calls "stakeholders".  This "stakeholder" disease  
also infects the WSIS/WGIG process.  Unfortunately we seem to have  
come to accept the idea tht people are no longer part of the  
processes of governance.

Third. No up and coming politician, much less one who expects to try  
to win over the votes of the stereotypical fundamentalist christian  
voter, wants to take any risk of being labeled as "the man who gave a  
home to porn" or "the candidate who is soft on porn".  A position in  
favor of allowing .xxx to go forward, or even a position that takes a  
detached stance on .xxx, has no political upside in our current era  
of social and political retreat back into the mentality and methods  
of the dark ages.

My own position is that .xxx represents the worst in human nature but  
that it is a legitimate right to be.  However, that does not mean  
that we shold elevate it and give it precedence.  Rather .xxx should  
only come *after* all the better ideas have been given their TLDs.  
Had ICANN ever had a disinterested, technical-only, policy in these  
matters then this situation of the .xxx preference would never have  
come to pass.  Had ICANN allowed unions, churches, community groups,  
artistic groups, etc have their TLDs earlier on, then the proponents  
of .xxx could claim that it's now time for their idea to have its  
opportunity.  But instead ICANN has created a sitution in which .xxx  
has been elevated over all those socially positive uses; hence the  
political reaction.



> If this takes place (or has already taken place) then it will give  
> fuel to those who claim that the Domain Name system
                          ^^^

In this sentence we find one of the big grains of sand in the bed  
that internet governance is trying to make - The idea that there must  
and shall be but one catholic domain name system is ultimately as  
unnecessary as the old assertion that there can and must be but one  
telephone directory or that we must all buy our grociers and supplies  
at one big Wal Mart rather than through a plethora of competing  
providers and distributors.

The issue is consistency among naming systems, not that there be a  
singularity of exactly one naming system.

        --karl--



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/