View Single Post
Old 06-03-2005, 12:15 AM  
Major (Tom)
White Pride
 
Major (Tom)'s Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Null
Posts: 32,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by J$tyle$
White Paper on .XXX Domains by Jason Hendeles
President, ICM Registry, Inc.
http://www.icmregistry.com/

March 7, 2001

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/it...tepaper_7.html


Back in late 2000 and early 2001 I was contracted as a consultant for ICM Registry.

Jason made quite an impassioned argument for what he was trying to accomplish regarding "child safety" on the web, and I believed it was a good idea at the time for the industry at large to take the initiative and proactively be responsibile when it came to disallowing children from viewing adult oriented material on the web.

In theory, the idea was for the industry to self regulate volountarily as a premptive strike before the government came in and forced regulation upon us made rational sense.

Of course, from a business standpoint it was a brilliant idea as well. Surfers would definitely type in and remember .xxx if they were going to look for a sex site. As a TLD it would be much more valuable to webmasters than .net, .org, tv etc.

Please understand that this was always proposed to me (and in general) to support voluntary participation by webmasters -- with no requirement to ever give up their .coms, and although it may sound NAIVE - because of First Ammendment protections ... the adult business would be able to remain untouched or unaffected by government regulation. It was my belief that this TLD would highly benefit webmasters by allowing for more targeted exposure to QUALIFIED SURFERS specifically looking for .XXX type sites and we would be able to more effectively block children from viewing adult material.

Times have changed and obviously the government has changed drastically. What seemed to be a great idea at the time may not seem so now, and I understand the fear and anger many of you feel presently over this.

Before I'm lambasted, I just want it stated for the record that I believed in the good it could do and it was a sound business model if executed properly.

It's definatley not a good idea now. And how it seems on paper is that a select few will litterally monopolize the net. Which, if everything else fails, maybe an anti trust lawsuit is our answer. I catergorically belive that anyone who supports this is linning up the proverbial nail and the hammer is about to drop. Not to mention the "self policing" thing is scary. Especially when someone involved in this "debacle" wants to make the net into a softcore shindig. Allowing us to police ourselves without the first ammendment means that the people in power will act in their own selfish self interest to enforce upon us what they feel is right or wrong or morally right or wrong, albeit legal. "The conclusion which follows is clear: those constitutions which consider the common interests are right constitutions, judged by the standard of absolute justice. Those constitutions which consider only the personal interest of the rulers are all wrong constitutions, or perversions, of the right forms. Such perverted forms are despotic."
Aristotle, Politics

Duke
__________________
WHITE LIVES MATTER
Major (Tom) is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote