1 MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION: WHO IS ICM Registry .XXX ????? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Mr.Fiction · 06-05-2005, 10:27 PM

50 companies trying to undermine free speech on the internet!

$pikes · 06-05-2005, 10:30 PM

WOW... huge thanks to Connor for clearing up many questions I had.

Anybody still think this is a good idea?

MikeHawk · 06-05-2005, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J$tyle$

... 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.

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....

J$tyle$ · 06-05-2005, 11:11 PM

Quote:

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....

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

Recently, ICM Registry retained Jonathan Silverstein, former President of Cybererotica; one of the Internet's top-five adult-content providers, to build consensus support within the adult industry. Mr. Silverstein reinforced this concern that ?any attempt to limit free speech will inspire an eruption of First Amendment challenges.? Supreme Court Justice O'Connor, while noting that ?the creation of 'adult zones' is by no means a novel concept ?and that? states have long denied minors access to certain establishments frequented by adults,? pointed out in the course of her partial dissent to the court's rejection of the Communication Decency Act that, while the court had previously sustained such zoning laws, it did so ?only if they respected the First Amendment rights of both adults and minors.? [4] That is to say, a zoning law could be held valid only if adult access was not unduly restricted, and minors themselves had no First Amendment rights to read or view the banned material in question.

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.

MikeHawk · 06-05-2005, 11:18 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

...............and that is why i love ya..you tell it like it is...........

Buddy if we were all perfect people and did not make mistakes the world would be a really fucking boreing place. I make huge mistakes in life, and it is always a great learning experience.

FleshJoe2005 · 06-05-2005, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BusterPorn

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

Wow they have a '.com' address?

orign8or · 06-05-2005, 11:51 PM

60 bucks per domain. I can tell they really have there hearts set on everyone buying as many domains as possible to protect children from accessing adult content.

One must question this motive if it were a true gesture of helping the industry protect the children perhaps these individuals could have made it more affordable for webmasters...

Protect the children! Line Your Pockets!

06-05-2005, 10:27 PM	#51
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	50 companies trying to undermine free speech on the internet! __________________ Don't be lazy, protect free speech: ACLU \| Free Speech Coalition \| EFF \| IMPA

06-05-2005, 10:30 PM	#52
$pikes Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,055	WOW... huge thanks to Connor for clearing up many questions I had. Anybody still think this is a good idea? __________________ SMASHBUCKS Paying webmasters on time since 2001 Joe Spikes - ICQ: 160069266

06-05-2005, 11:51 PM	#57
orign8or So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 24	60 bucks per domain. I can tell they really have there hearts set on everyone buying as many domains as possible to protect children from accessing adult content. One must question this motive if it were a true gesture of helping the industry protect the children perhaps these individuals could have made it more affordable for webmasters... Protect the children! Line Your Pockets!