Rick:
First, one must put things in perspective. As the statement says, one
does not have to support or oppose .xxx to agree with the statement and
its key propositions that:

1) this does constitute political intervention by the USG
2) the intervention was prompted by advocates of content regulation
3) this act will change and is changing the political complexion of
ICANN

I would urge you not to get hung up on what are (in my opinion)
pointless debates about how Congress "might" react to the creation of
.xxx. Logically, your position makes no sense. Why does Congress need a
new TLD to do the things you want? Has it not already tried to pass a
CDA and several other forms of censorship? Has it not been stopped each
time by the first Amendment? Has Congress not ALREADY passed a law
requiring schools and libraries to filter porn? Isn't that existing law
made more rational by allowing those who voluntarily register in the
domain to signal to schools and libraries that their material is
inappropriate for minors? Couldn't Congress, if it wanted to try again,
attempt to force all porn into a xxx.us domain or even a xxx.com domain?


No, the civil libertarian arguments against .xxx just don't hold water.


One other comment. If this is true:

>>> Rick Weingarten <[log in to unmask]> 08/26/05 8:46 AM >>>
>We are also, of couse, very concerned (but hardly surprised) 
>at the willingness of the Department of Commerce to set aside 
>its fig leaf of neutrality and push ICANN around 

What do you plan to do about it? Nothing? 

>That tension between the goal of international and US control has 
>been in existence and in evidence for many years, and I don't 
>see it resolving anytime soon.

I see that it is being resolved right now. 

>I can't help but think that ICANN shot itself in the foot by stepping

>into what is, at least for us, one of the most contentious social 
>issues around the Internet--pornography and content control. 

I think you are wrong here, too. What you are saying, in effect, is
that ICANN should have ducked the issue. But there is no ducking the
issue. If they had suppressed .xxx they would be taking a position on
the issue too.