Originally Posted by J$tyle$

:thumbsup

... and I don't think you're out of the loop at all - there are a lot of assumptions and speculation. Some based on logic and some - (not pertaining to your statements) not so much.

:2 cents:

Originally Posted by MikeHawk

I love you too J$tyles and you know this, the part I am having a hard time with are these points:
1. pay offs for votes to make this go
2. using the "protection of children" to sell this bill of goods.
3. all the "older dudes" that are in the shadows that have made there backroom deals.
4. If its such a good deal and so noble why dont they come out and stand up and tell us in detail why its so amazing?
5. How does it solve the Children and porn issue? If it was so good as it stands and how it will help our industry why take that route to sell?


I dont know buddy...it just smells funny, i have smelled this same smell before and its when I am picking up the doggie poo poo.... :2 cents:

Originally Posted by tony404

The Shadow of Dot XXX
by Connor Young
http://www.ynot.com/index.php?name=P...ewprof ile&u=

For years now, Hendeles and Lawley have been approaching adult industry leaders and asking for their support. They even paid former Cybererotica CEO Jonathan Silverstein a nice sum of money to help them convince the industry that dot-xxx was a good idea. Silverstein now says he sees why dot-xxx is dangerous.

Originally Posted by J$tyle$

I can't speak for anyone else but myself, Mike - and I know that webmasters deserve answers to these important questions.

My answers are below.

:winkwink:


Just to clarify - I made a post a few days ago stating where I stood/stand in all of this:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?p=7479527




White Paper on .XXX Domains by Jason Hendeles
President, ICM Registry, Inc.
http://www.icmregistry.com/

March 7, 2001

The following is an excerpt from ICM Registry's White Paper from 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.

Originally Posted by BusterPorn

www.icmregistry.com
Stuart Lawley, Chairman & President
Stuart Duncan, CEO
Jason Hendeles, Vice President
Len Bayles, CTO