Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell
Even on this forum which has thousands of participating webmasters we can't find 23 companies that support .XXX - it doesn't even seem that we can find more than a few total, that is companies of actual substance and size - I can't say that I've seen ONE yet admit to supporting it.
|
Unfortunately, if you were an ICANN member, you could reasonably be looking at this from the point of view that 24 "names"
have supported this TLD. They may have chosen to do so secretly as far as hiding their identity from others in this industry, but they are known to ICANN and presumably their support was presented in a credible manner.
Against that, despite - as you point out - the many who visit this board alone, the opposition hasn't been especially numerous and a lot of the objections skated close to GFY "style". Above all, with some honorable exceptions, were missing objections from sponsors, designers, hosting companies, etc who are not among the 24 supporters. Nor, although it is rumored that some of those 24 have changed their mind, AFAIK none have made that known directly to ICANN.
The point I am trying to make is that if I were an industry outsider, as the ICANN board members are, I could easily interpret the picture as one in which leading, legitimate businesses are in favor of this TLD and such opposition as there is, being mainly from individual webmasters: the very people I would suspect most of pushing the envelope and whose activities bring about the perceived need for this TLD in the first place.
We know that so long as parents will not filter what their children see, XXX will be no more effective than any other kind of labelling.
We know that profit motive is the only reason ICM or its secret supporters want this TLD and that they have no interest whatever in protecting minors. But if you were an outsider, you know none of these things and if you are presented with a coherent argument, apparently backed by the major players of the industry concerned, you likely would take notice.
As seems to always be the case when we face major issues, most people sat on their hands. Somehow, if there is another chance to voice our opposition, we need to get more people on board, but in particular we need to get more named businesses on board. If ICM can find 24 companies to sign up in support, we need to find many more who will sign up in opposition. And maybe, instead of their opposition being lost among the 77%, they need to sign a common presentation.
Not only should this be more effective, but this is not an issue which allows for fence sitting. Without opposition, eventually this TLD will be created, which really does mean that if you are not publicly against it, then in effect you are supporting it.