Forwarded message
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:46:40 -0400
From: David Farber <dave (AT) farber (DOT) net>
To: ip (AT) v2 (DOT) listbox.com
Subject: [IP] ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Begin forwarded message:
As reported in:
ICANN has reversed their earlier preliminary approval, and has now
rejected the "dot-xxx" adult materials top-level domain. I applaud
this wise decision by ICANN, which should simultaneously please both
anti-porn and free speech proponents, where opposition to the TLD
has been intense, though for totally disparate reasons.
Nick's AP piece referenced above notes that there are still
Congressional efforts to mandate such a TLD. It is important
to work toward ensuring that these do not gain traction.
Lauren Weinstein
lauren (AT) vortex (DOT) com or lauren (AT) pfir (DOT) org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, IIC
- International Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com

Thu, 11 May 2006 13:40:22 EDT, Alain Hebert said:
If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere
else than on .xxx should fix the issue for the prudes out there.

The problem is that it's a TLD, not .xxx.us. What standard of "porn"
do you intend to enforce? Remember there's places that have Internet
where females are still supposed to keep their faces covered in public.

Besides which, "if we can corral them in it" looks like a very implausible
concept.

RFC3675.

PGP SIGNATURE
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001

3b0HxYkxH69pUYipzyhxrGM=
=+pSh
PGP SIGNATURE

Thus spake "Alain Hebert" <ahebert (AT) pubnix (DOT) net>
Why?

If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere else
than on .xxx should fix the issue for the prudes out there.

And exactly which legislature has the authority to prevent porn sites
registering in any other gTLD/ccTLD?

S

Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." Sorkin

the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort.

the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial, as the cctlds cover that,
and the authority, nominally, is a 501(c)(3) in marina del rey, and,
purely contractual, as is the registry restricted to cooperative entities
and the registry restricted to aviation entities.

we are spared having to contest .xxx registrants who failed to meet the
terms of the sponsored tld -- intolerably bland content.

12-May-2006, at 01:17, Martin Hannigan wrote:

At 2:43 PM -0400 05:11:2006, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>
>the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort.
>>
>the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial,
>
Negative. 92% of the root is under US jurisdiction

How are you measuring the root, for the purposes of that assertion?

Joe

earlier i wrote:

the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort.

the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial, as the cctlds cover that,
and the authority, nominally, is a 501(c)(3) in marina del rey, and,
purely contractual, as is the registry restricted to cooperative entities
and the registry restricted to aviation entities.

this drew a response from martin hannigan:

: Negative. 92% of the root is under US jurisdiction with most ccTLD's
: riding on that infrastructure. I'm in the process of analyzing that
: now. I'll let you know what the number comes out to, but I bet it's
: close.

having been a party to the drafting of the icann new gtld contracts, an
interested party in the case of the neu* .biz contract, and an invited,
if ad hoc, expert in the case of the aero/coop/museum contracts, mostly
at louis touton's initiative, i'm of the (ianal) opinion that other than
the easily answered california incorporated 501(c)(3) jurisdictional
question implicit in the contracts between icann and the new gtld sponsors,
that no jurisdictional restrictions were specified in the ngtld contracts.

some actual lawyer may comment on the distinction between statutory
authority over the conduct of parties to a private contract, and the
civil law jurisdiction the parties agree to to resolve contractual
disputes.

there are parties that hold a territorial jurisdiction trumps all point
of view. the us doc placed territorial jurisdiction (physical location)
requirements in the .us rfp, which i also wrote the winning response to,
so all .us nameservers are within the continental united states.

personally i view this requirement as brain-dead.

similarly, icann last summer adopted a contested redelegation process
for cctlds which values territorial jurisdiction claims.

personally i view this process change as brain-dead.

obviously, milage varries.

now the issue of controlling authority has come up previously, and the
claim that there is only one jurisdiction, the us, has also been made
previously.

see the w3c's p3p standard, and the data collection (aka "privacy) policy
regimes we (i'm wearing that co-author hat now) provided mechanism for.

again, ymmv.
eric

Aside from all of the technical aspects that would make having a .xxx tld
difficult at best,
you have to take into account the moral aspects. If all of the "adult"
sites were to switch to the .xxx format,
it would make it extremely easy (as if it isn't right now) for minors to
locate and access websites that they shouldn't
be allowed to view. Instead of having to google for "porn", all they'd have
to do is type: favoritepornhere.xxx and
shabaaam! there they go. Just my 2 cents.

Gregory Taylor
greg (AT) xwb (DOT) com

Message
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <brunner (AT) nic-naa (DOT) net>
To: <nanog (AT) nanog (DOT) org>
Cc: "william(at)elan.net" <william (AT) elan (DOT) net>; <brunner (AT) nic-naa (DOT) net>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain

earlier i wrote:
>
>the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort.
>>
>the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial, as the cctlds cover that,
>and the authority, nominally, is a 501(c)(3) in marina del rey, and,
>purely contractual, as is the registry restricted to cooperative entities
>and the registry restricted to aviation entities.
>
this drew a response from martin hannigan:

: Negative. 92% of the root is under US jurisdiction with most ccTLD's
: riding on that infrastructure. I'm in the process of analyzing that
: now. I'll let you know what the number comes out to, but I bet it's
: close.

having been a party to the drafting of the icann new gtld contracts, an
interested party in the case of the neu* .biz contract, and an invited,
if ad hoc, expert in the case of the aero/coop/museum contracts, mostly
at louis touton's initiative, i'm of the (ianal) opinion that other than
the easily answered california incorporated 501(c)(3) jurisdictional
question implicit in the contracts between icann and the new gtld
sponsors,
that no jurisdictional restrictions were specified in the ngtld contracts.

some actual lawyer may comment on the distinction between statutory
authority over the conduct of parties to a private contract, and the
civil law jurisdiction the parties agree to to resolve contractual
disputes.

there are parties that hold a territorial jurisdiction trumps all point
of view. the us doc placed territorial jurisdiction (physical location)
requirements in the .us rfp, which i also wrote the winning response to,
so all .us nameservers are within the continental united states.

personally i view this requirement as brain-dead.

similarly, icann last summer adopted a contested redelegation process
for cctlds which values territorial jurisdiction claims.

personally i view this process change as brain-dead.

obviously, milage varries.

now the issue of controlling authority has come up previously, and the
claim that there is only one jurisdiction, the us, has also been made
previously.

see the w3c's p3p standard, and the data collection (aka "privacy) policy
regimes we (i'm wearing that co-author hat now) provided mechanism for.

again, ymmv.
eric

What are they talking about? .XXX already exists:

%dig ns xxx @g.public-root.com

; <<>DiG 9.3.2 <<>ns xxx @g.public-root.com
; (1 server found)
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NERRR, id: 65
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHRITY: 2, ADDITINAL: 1

;; QUESTIN SECTIN:
;xxx. IN NS

;; AUTHRITY SECTIN:
xxx. 172800 IN NS eugene.kashpureff.org.
xxx. 172800 IN NS ga.dnspros.net.

;; ADDITINAL SECTIN:
ga.dnspros.net. 172800 IN A 64.27.14.2

;; Query time: 2 msec
;; SERVER: 199.5.157.131#53(199.5.157.131)
;; WHEN: Fri May 12 18:12:48 2006
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 100

, sorry - you mean in the restricted USG root where ICANN actually has to approve new TLDs rather than just doing the technical
coordination (the NLY thing they were tasked to do in the first place).

Freedom/Free Market Score: Inclusive Namespace: INFINITY, ICANN: ZER

May 12, 2006, at 3:26 PM, John Palmer (NANG Acct) wrote:

What are they talking about? .XXX already exists:
No it doesn't, see below:

dig ns xxx @

; <<>DiG 9.2.1 <<>ns xxx @10.24.0.7
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDMAIN, id: 3245
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHRITY: 1, ADDITINAL: 0

;; QUESTIN SECTIN:
;xxx. IN NS

;; AUTHRITY SECTIN:
86400 IN SA

;; Query time: 4 msec
;; SERVER: #53(192.0.2.1)
;; WHEN: Fri May 12 15:34:17 2006
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 96

And this is exactly why there should be only 1 namespace

W

%dig ns xxx @g.public-root.com

; <<>DiG 9.3.2 <<>ns xxx @g.public-root.com
; (1 server found)
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NERRR, id: 65
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHRITY: 2, ADDITINAL: 1

;; QUESTIN SECTIN:
;xxx. IN NS

;; AUTHRITY SECTIN:
xxx. 172800 IN NS eugene.kashpureff.org.
xxx. 172800 IN NS ga.dnspros.net.

;; ADDITINAL SECTIN:
ga.dnspros.net. 172800 IN A 64.27.14.2

;; Query time: 2 msec
;; SERVER: 199.5.157.131#53(199.5.157.131)
;; WHEN: Fri May 12 18:12:48 2006
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 100

, sorry - you mean in the restricted USG root where ICANN
actually has to approve new TLDs rather than just doing the technical
coordination (the NLY thing they were tasked to do in the first
place).

Freedom/Free Market Score: Inclusive Namespace: INFINITY, ICANN: ZER
--

Life is a concentration camp. You're stuck here and there's no way
out and you can only rage impotently against your persecutors.
-- Woody Allen

Splintering the namespace is a convenient excuse that ICANN uses to
engage in restraint of trade and excessive regulation. ICANN was
never given the right to regulate entry into the industry, only to be
a technical coordinator.

Calling people kooks is a good way to get sued, but it doesn't add
anything useful to the debate.

Message
From: "Warren Kumari" <warren (AT) kumari (DOT) net>
To: "John Palmer (NANG Acct)" <nanog (AT) adns (DOT) net>
Cc: <nanog (AT) nanog (DOT) org>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain

May 12, 2006, at 3:26 PM, John Palmer (NANG Acct) wrote:

What are they talking about? .XXX already exists:
No it doesn't, see below:

dig ns xxx @

; <<>DiG 9.2.1 <<>ns xxx @10.24.0.7
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDMAIN, id: 3245
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHRITY: 1, ADDITINAL: 0

;; QUESTIN SECTIN:
;xxx. IN NS

;; AUTHRITY SECTIN:
. 86400 IN SA

;; Query time: 4 msec
;; SERVER: #53(192.0.2.1)
;; WHEN: Fri May 12 15:34:17 2006
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 96

And this is exactly why there should be only 1 namespace

W

%dig ns xxx @g.public-root.com

; <<>DiG 9.3.2 <<>ns xxx @g.public-root.com
; (1 server found)
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NERRR, id: 65
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHRITY: 2, ADDITINAL: 1

;; QUESTIN SECTIN:
;xxx. IN NS

;; AUTHRITY SECTIN:
xxx. 172800 IN NS eugene.kashpureff.org.
xxx. 172800 IN NS ga.dnspros.net.

;; ADDITINAL SECTIN:
ga.dnspros.net. 172800 IN A 64.27.14.2

;; Query time: 2 msec
;; SERVER: 199.5.157.131#53(199.5.157.131)
;; WHEN: Fri May 12 18:12:48 2006
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 100

, sorry - you mean in the restricted USG root where ICANN
actually has to approve new TLDs rather than just doing the technical
coordination (the NLY thing they were tasked to do in the first
place).

Freedom/Free Market Score: Inclusive Namespace: INFINITY, ICANN: ZER
--

Life is a concentration camp. You're stuck here and there's no way
out and you can only rage impotently against your persecutors.
-- Woody Allen

Fri, 12 May 2006, John Palmer (NANG Acct) wrote:

What are they talking about? .XXX already exists:

%dig ns xxx @g.public-root.com

;; AUTHRITY SECTIN:
xxx. 172800 IN NS eugene.kashpureff.org.

omg that is is super internet lols. seriously, best ns evar.

thx for the giggles.

@snark.net<darwin><
Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity.
- Marshall McLuhan