|
200.........
|
bump the .xxx
|
Quote:
:) Fight the but this goes to 11! |
good stuff. nice to see the flynt submission.
my question is who is stuffing that forum with canned responses. take some time and be creative and educated in your responses please. if you wanted someone to take something seriously you need to invest at least a few minutes in your submissions. |
Quote:
FSC has a form letter that people could sign and went to him, and he's posting them up now.. he has several hundred that he packaged up to ICANN, and now that the comment period was re-opened, he had been posting them up. It does appear to be spammy as i chatted with him about that. Fight the copy/paste! |
here is a great opposition letter, very well written and basically a summary of why this thing is bad for all of us, for those who are not up to speed on what this xxx thing is.
Opposed to .XXX * To: xxx-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx * Subject: Opposed to .XXX * From: Roy Huggins ICANN Communications <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> * Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 22:00:42 -0700 While the .xxx TLD may appear useful on the surface, the implementation of it will cause widespread damage. It has already been expressed by US government officials that the existence of a .xxx TLD would be utilized in order to force adult websites that operate in the US to do so solely under a .xxx domain. The least of the damage to be caused is the loss of marks long-held by webmasters previously operating under other TLDs. Thousands of webmasters have worked for years on .com, .net, etc and will lose huge portions of that work if forced into a .xxx ghetto. The suggestion that they can simply redirect their traffic to the new .xxx is naive and foolish and could only come from someone who is unfamiliar with website development and promotion. For instance, search engines do not regard redirects as legitimate for backward linking purposes. Millions of dollars could be lost on damaged search engine placement alone. In addition, what guarantee will any adult webmaster have that they will be able to get the .xxx equivalent of their current domain? The forced switch to .xxx will promote domain squatting and the crippling extortion that goes with it. We saw this in the mid-90s and we can easily see it again. There are currently many more TLDs than just .com. This means that a forced switch to .xxx will ensure that many webmasters will be edged out of their long-held and hard-fought marks as they scramble to get whatever .xxx domain most resembles their original business name. Besides the concern that ghetto-izing legislation would follow the .xxx TLD's approval, it should be sufficient to simply note that the institution of .xxx will in no way assist in hiding pornography from the eyes of minors. The majority of pornographic websites are not American and would not have to abide by .xxx even if said legislation did come to pass. The only pornography that would be filtered by .xxx alone would be that created in the US. A simple Google search followed by a lot of GeoIP checking will tell you that most of the Internet's pornographic content is not in the US and its owners would have no incentive to move it to a .xxx domain. Ipso facto, the institution of .xxx will provide no help in preventing minors from viewing pornography on the Internet. This logic is simple and factual, and should be convincing for anyone who is truly interested in helping parents keep their children away from pornography. The majority of the adult industry is interested in keeping children away from their content, and that is why they use tagging systems like ICRA and support such services as NetNanny, etc. This is because webmasters understand that self-labeling, and the active participation of parents in their children's lives, are the only truly effective method of preventing minors from viewing pornography on the Internet. I urge ICANN to reject the .xxx TLD proposal. It is nothing more than an effort to make an extra buck and push a moral agenda at the expense of a socially marginalized industry. The damage it will cause will be widespread and only the powerful and wealthy will benefit. -Roy Huggins Professional Web Developer and Concerned Netizen |
:thumbsup
|
Fight the bump!
|
I posted up another message to ICANN:
According to the introductory page on Top Level Domains found at: http://www.icann.org/tlds/ I referer to this section: ------------------------------------------------- Generic TLDs In the 1980s, seven gTLDs (.com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and .org) were created. Domain names may be registered in three of these (.com, .net, and .org) without restriction; the other four have limited purposes. Over the next twelve years, various discussions occurred concerning additional gTLDs, leading to the selection in November 2000 of seven new TLDs for introduction. These were introduced in 2001 and 2002. Four of the new TLDs (.biz, .info, .name, and .pro) are unsponsored. The other three new TLDs (.aero, .coop, and .museum) are sponsored. Generally speaking, an unsponsored TLD operates under policies established by the global Internet community directly through the ICANN process, while a sponsored TLD is a specialized TLD that has a sponsor representing the narrower community that is most affected by the TLD. The sponsor thus carries out delegated policy-formulation responsibilities over many matters concerning the TLD. A Sponsor is an organization to which is delegated some defined ongoing policy-formulation authority regarding the manner in which a particular sponsored TLD is operated. The sponsored TLD has a Charter, which defines the purpose for which the sponsored TLD has been created and will be operated. The Sponsor is responsible for developing policies on the delegated topics so that the TLD is operated for the benefit of a defined group of stakeholders, known as the Sponsored TLD Community, that are most directly interested in the operation of the TLD. The Sponsor also is responsible for selecting the registry operator and to varying degrees for establishing the roles played by registrars and their relationship with the registry operator. The Sponsor must exercise its delegated authority according to fairness standards and in a manner that is representative of the Sponsored TLD Community. The extent to which policy-formulation responsibilities are appropriately delegated to a Sponsor depends upon the characteristics of the organization that may make such delegation appropriate. These characteristics may include the mechanisms the organization uses to formulate policies, its mission, its guarantees of independence from the registry operator and registrars, who will be permitted to participate in the Sponsor's policy-development efforts and in what way, and the Sponsor's degree and type of accountability to the Sponsored TLD Community. ---------------------------------------- In pulling out this quote: "The Sponsor is responsible for developing policies on the delegated topics so that the TLD is operated for the benefit of a defined group of stakeholders, known as the Sponsored TLD Community, that are most directly interested in the operation of the TLD. " It should be clear that the adult online community that has vocally expressed themselves by submitting their opposition to the .XXX TLD, are representative of the adult community. Adult companies from small to large (including Larry Flynt's posted opposition to .XXX : http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-tld.../msg00412.html) all come from the SPONSORED TLD COMMUNITY. While many qualitative reasons have been posted as to why .XXX is being opposed, the most obvious one should be that ICM Registry does not have the constituency nor the community's approval for this TLD. If ICANN approves .XXX over the wishes of the Sponsored TLD community and over GAC members, then ICANN has clearly demonstrated that it is not interested in following its own rules, and is on some strange hidden mission that is baffling to all observers. Fight the .XXX! |
great post but Im still not sure if they are reading all of these
you said you sent the Larry Flynt letter directly to Vinton Cerf (?) so at least that will be read |
the thing I want the most now is seeing .xxx officially voted down in 24 hours from now
and I mean not delayed again because of small things that need to be changed or discussed, - I mean voted clearly down killing finally this .xxx application :thumbsup |
Quote:
absolutely... i know you have been ringing the anti .XXX bell for a long time, probably a little longer than i have, and it would be good to finally have this .XXX fail, and then to focus on real solutions of protecting children from undesirable material...and .KIDS is going to be the answer. Fight the ear plugs! |
I posted to that board!
|
|
Lets go peeps..... lets see 600+ on that archive before the end of the day.
|
I have posted, also. Sorry that I was late doing so! I couldn't have slept at night if I didn't get to voice my opposition on the ICANN web site.
Best of luck to ALL of us! NO to XXX :) Brad |
Another great post by Reed Lee, FSC attorney to ICANN:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-tld.../msg00530.html I offer the following thoughts on ICM's sponsored .xxx tld proposal and proposed contract as they now stand: 1. I have always thought that a .xxx tld is a bad idea. For one thing, it seems to me to reverse the presumption of freedom which should prevail on the Internet. To be sure, children can benefit a great deal from the Internet, but they won't likely be permitted to surf freely if they can find pornography -- perfectly appropriate for the adults who want to see it -- at the drop of a hat or the click of a mouse. But the solution to this problem has always seemed to me to be a bicycle lane for the Internet, not limiting free traffic on the information superhighway so that kids can play in the middle of the highway. And this has seemed especially true in light of the struggles to keep the Internet mainstream free for those who need to reach people with messages about such things as birth control or suicide prevention -- messages that many people really think are inappropriate for children and so also belong in some roped-off corner of the Internet, if indeed they belong anywhere at all. Without a better understanding of and common agreement on what expression constitutes "material harmful to minors," .xxx seems dangerously premature at best. Neither ICM nor any of .xxx's few supporters have done anything to advance that understanding. ICM never, so far as I know, contacted the ACLU or EFF as I suggested, to see what those who are in the thick of free speech fights on the Internet think of the proposal. It did contact the Free Speech Coalition, which rejected and opposes the ICM .xxx proposal. 2. Roll-out of .xxx would also come at a particularly bad time in the development of the Internet DNS. With so few existing tlds, second-level domain names have undeniably become valuable commodities, and handing a new set to a single additional registry for adult entertainment would, as many have noted, create instant wealth for ICM and make for what some have called -- speaking metaphorically, of course -- extortion. At the very least we'd be likely to see an unseemly land rush for the second level, with nearly endless disputes over intellectual property rights. At some point in the future, rolling out a (perhaps unsponsored) .xxx tld along with a .sex tld and several others designed for adult entertainment would at least avoid the current problem of the sort of oligarchical monopoly (not even an oligopoly, really) which exists today in the tld field. But until ICANN is in a position to do this, the second-level domain name monopoly for ICM in the adult entertainment sector will remain a serious problem. I am sympathetic to those who would expand the domain name space precisely in order to get by the current undue influence on second- level domain names, but rolling out a _single_ new tld for adult entertainment operated by a _single_ new registry simply does not avoid the monopoly problem within the adult entertainment sector. Unleashing that problem now will not help the image of the Internet in the eyes of its users, and it will, in my view, have serious and undesirable anti-competitive effects in the adult entertainment Internet "community." The haves always seem to want more in this world, and I have sensed from the beginning of ICM"s sponsored .xxx proposal that a few haves are chomping at the bit to snap up the second-level domain names that some measly little user beat them to under the other tlds. 3. The adult entertainment sector of the Internet is undeniably substantial, but it is simply not the sort of "community" which fits ICANN's published ideas about sponsored tlds. It lacks any sort of natural internal organization, and, speaking as one who serves on the Free Speech Coalition board of directors, it has little impetus to organize itself except in opposition to direct regulatory threats (as, indeed, many in this "community" view .xxx). Organizing support for any sort of trade association or advocacy group has been a daunting task over the years, and it is pure fantasy to dream that IFFOR will be seen as an organization of, by, and for the adult entertainment industry. I've done political organizing in several fields for a long time now, and I know that all true "community" organizations grow up from the grass roots, they are not imposed from above. IFFOR will not be seen as an adult entertainment industry organization nor as a vehicle for genuine _self_-regulation. I respectfully submit that if ICM has convincingly said otherwise, it has seriously misled ICANN. There is a place for sponsored tlds directed toward groups or industries which already have a substantial internal organization when the internal organiza- tions _themselves_ approach ICANN and ask for one. But this is not what happened here. IFFOR does not yet exist even now. It will be created only to allow ICM to imagine an organized community behind its sponsored .xxx proposal. part 1 |
part 2
4. None of this is to say that there is not a substantial number of what ICM calls "responsible" adult webmasters. Indeed, there are many who have no desire to peddle their product to children or, for that matter, to unconsenting adults. The trade in sexual expression among adults is doing just fine for them, and they hardly need the animosity and the financial headaches (i.e. credit card chargebacks) which come with trying to foist their wares upon the unwilling. But the myriad "responsible" webmasters don't need IFFOR or .xxx. They are actively working through the Free Speech Coalition and other industry organizations on ways to promote end-user filtering of Internet expression while avoiding the prospect of either switching-system filtering by IPSs and other middle-men or mandatory source filtering of their expression. And, as they work through such organizations, they are assured that free expression considerations remain central to the efforts. One of the problems with the .xxx proposal is that ICM has no history at all with any free speech concerns and ICANN deliberately (and understandably) says that censorship is no part of its mission. But it is one thing to say ICANN won't undertake censorship on its own, it is quite another for ICANN to ignore the censorship poten- tial in proposals brought to it. A major problem with the ICANN review process so far is that it has ignored this potential with .xxx. ICANN does Internet freedom no favors by burying its head in the sand or by saying "that's not my problem" when it is being asked to do something which could promote censorship. The .xxx tld would be the first which is deliberately designed to enable filtering (and which could thus encourage censorship). All others, on the contrary, fit comfortably within the basic sponsored tld concept of _promoting_ access to the site using them. 5. Throughout the .xxx controversy, ICM has maintained that the tld will remain voluntary. But neither ICM nor ICANN can assure that. Even as I write, a bill has been introduced in the United States Senate, S.B. 2426, to make .xxx manda- tory for all materials which are "harmful to minors." Again, we have little clue as to what this term includes, as a practical matter, but the very fact of the bill is enough to show how fleeting are ICM's promises of choice. The ICANN board should not proceed with any .xxx proposal without studying -- or referring for study -- all of the censorship-related issues. And these issues include poten- tial reaction not just by governments but also by private institutions such as ISPs and financial institutions. As I noted above, .xxx is not just another tld, it is one with unique and unprecedented censorship implications. The review process simply must take account of this reality. 6. Perhaps because the .xxx tld idea could, at first glance, appeal to two very different groups of people (those who see it as promoting access to adult expression vs. those who see it as a tool for public or private censorship), ICM seems to have done a good deal of talking out of both sides of its mouth. ICANN should open its review process to insure that all can see what ICANN has said to the adult entertainment industry, on one hand, and to government and private regulatory authorities, on the other. ICM told adult webmasters, for instance, that they could keep their .com domain names and operate those sites without any change at all. But it is hard to see how, under those conditions, .xxx could promote the filtering which ICM touted to others. At best, ICM appears to have left something unsaid somewhere. Beyond this, I was very concerned (though, alas, I may be too jaded to have been surprised) to learn from the recent Department of Commerce letter that ICM had apparently made regulatory commitments to GAC which seem contradictory to the picture it earlier drew for the adult entertainment industry. Spidering of websites and record-keeping requirements, for instance, simply were not part of that picture, but they have now made into the contract. As the Free Speech Coalition actively fights a burdensome and Byzantine set of U.S. record-keeping requirements, it is understandably concerned about the references to such a thing as part of the .xxx/IFFOR protocol. We are obviously not prepared to trade one oppressor for another; and, at the very least, we deserve to know the specifics of the regulatory practices which IFFOR will impose. If ICM had told the adult enter- tainment industry that it would impose its own Section 2257-like requirement even if the U.S. law falls for constitutional reasons, virtually no one in the adult entertainment sector would support its proposal. But ICM seems to have said just this to GAC or perhaps to the U.S. Commerce Department. This is but one of many examples (the format of this comment page seems to mili- tate against comprehensive treatment) of the potential regulatory issues which the present ICM-ICANN contract leaves open. These matters cannot be left for later. Since they are essential to judging the censorship poten- tial of .xxx tld, they must be spelled out now in detail in the ICANN-ICM contract. Even if ICANN were satisfied with IFFOR's ability to legislate these matters in the future, the supposed "community" to be served by .xxx most decidedly is not. 7. One of the difficulties with a multi-stakeholder model for an international regulatory agency is that small stakeholders and those with unique concerns risk being lost in the deliberative process. I concede that, in a technical sense familiar to ICANN and its staff, .xxx could work without causing the DNS to come crashing down. On the other hand, does ICANN really want to approve .xxx if the vast majority of its users buy second-level domain names and park them only to prevent others from getting them (but leaving them otherwise unsued because of unsettled censorship concerns)? I realize, too, that ICM presents itself as a technically competent potential registry with likeable representatives in the mold, for example, of the most solid and responsible telecommunications conglomerate. But neither ICANN governors nor its staff should be swayed or satisfied by the fact that ICM seems to be a responsible business with a plan to profit by the Internet. ICANN owes a responsibility to the Internet and all who benefit by it to _also_ consider whether ICM's idea is a good one, on balance, or a dangerous one. When all of ICM's claims about benefits to "responsible" adult webmasters and the like are seen to be as lame as they truly are, ICM seems to be left with a business plan to sell (in a sense _re_-sell) second level domain names to grudging buyers who may well not put them to any good use. With pending legislation to grab control of .xxx away from ICANN at least in order to make it mandatory, ICM's quest is just too dangerous. At the very least it warrants much more careful study of its censorship potential and the other matters I've outlined here. But it is frankly difficult for me to see how the inherent dangers in the ICM .xxx proposal could be overcome in the foreseeable future. ----------------------------------- For those that need a summary, he said: .XXX = bad idea Fight the cliff notes! |
10,000 Sites
See this http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=607838 and the very powerful posting by Brad Mitchell --he rocks:-)!!!!!!!!
Dave |
Has that also been sent to the board members thats a great letter
|
Wow that's a great post by Reed Lee!
Brad |
Another Posting to ICANN That I Just Made!
Lest they not realize it, I just emailed the below to ICANN:
"I've previously sent you my thoughts, but after reading the attached emails to you I wanted to point out that just like Brad Mitchell represents 10,000 websites, many of the posters who have voiced their opposition to .xxx represent MANY surfers/tax-payers/voters who visit MANY American adult sites; or, they can even be Adult Internet Industry individuals who represent MULTIPLE folks/sites/etc. Consequently, I recommend that you multiply the emails against .xxx by MANY factors to get a realistic feel for the overwhelming opposition to .xxx. Please deny .xxx once and for all. Regards, Dave Cummings Lt Col, U.S. Army (ret)" Dave |
Quote:
The implications of a lot of stuff that was only hinted at is scary at best. |
https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/607890-godaddy-encourages-icann-accept-xxx.html
GoDaddy supports .xxx and encourages ICANN to accept it |
i just couldn't resist posting this.. it's absolutely ridiculous how ICANN has disregarded its own rules:
Can anyone get a .travel domain? The answer is NO. From this PCmag.com article: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1851111,00.asp --------------------------------------- .Travel was created for consumers as an integrated and highly specialized worldwide e-directory. It was designed to help identify and distinguish between various businesses that provide travel-related services, according to a recent news release, here in PDF form. Businesses that are eligible for a .travel domain name include hotels and resorts, travel agents, tour operators, theme parks, camp facility operators, air-, cruise- and rail-lines, visitor's bureaus and others, according to the ness release. "To verify eligibility for .travel, companies must first become authenticated," said Barrett. "There are two ways to do this: The company can belong to one of 30 travel associations that are providing the service, or they can go through Dun & Bradstreet." Once authenticated, the company can apply to pre-register its domain name through the Encirca Web site, for .travel's Limited Launch, which is scheduled to begin Oct. 1, according to Barrett. ------------------------------------------ .Travel was created for the travel and tourism companies... businesses... individual consumers not part of a business cannot get this TLD domain. .XXX has similar provisions that only adult industry people could register .XXX domains, and there would be some means that ICM/IFFOR did that validation. So ONLY the members of a SPONSORED TLD COMMUNITY can get a domain. .TRAVEL defined its stakeholders as being BUSINESSES in travel, not open to everyone. .XXX has defined its SPONSORED TLD COMMUNITY as current adult entertainment websites. The very community that .XXX defines as stakeholders, has overwhelmingly rejected the TLD. ICANN is looking to force a .XXX TLD based the wishes and desires of entities that are not stakeholders. By approving .XXX, ICANN has completely ignored its own rules and definitions that will send a discouraging message to future TLD applications, that how can they invest money and time into a process that is so flawed, that even ICANN cannot follow its own rules. Please follow your own rules and guidelines.... to use procedural guidelines to be the answer to reject .XXX, not to mention all the other various reasons that the SPONSORED TLD COMMUNITY has expressed. Fight the lawsuits waiting to happen! |
bump for you lazy fuckers who didn't send an email.......
|
|
Quote:
It "was" supposed to be handed over on September 2006 to an international org representing all TLD countries and where they all had a say in the management of their TLD's. It is totally absurd that a subcontractor of the US Dept of Defense is still handling TLD's for the rest of the world. As you are no doubt aware, Bush broke this agreement. Obviously the rest of the world are not interested in Bush's plans for ICANN and it's only a matter of time before this org is terminated. |
Quote:
I know that idea makes US Commerce Dept. cringe for fear of national security, and integrity of internet, ecommerce, etc.. but the UN seems to have a better track record of diplomacy internationally than the US. Fight the ICAN'T ! |
Bump for the death of .xxx!
|
Quote:
|
I hope ICANN can see through all the BS from the money-hungries who support .xxx.
|
Quote:
greetings from Toronto!...weather is awsome! |
ICANN's board meets today..............
|
Executive Director of FSC posts up to ICANN. I have added highlighting for emphasis:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-tld.../msg00593.html May 9, 2006 Dear ICANN Board of Directors, As you may already be aware, the Free Speech Coalition is the trade association for the adult entertainment industry, with over 3000 members from every sector of the business. We are already on record as being opposed to the current ICM Registry application to create a .XXX top-level domain (TLD), but I thought I might take this opportunity to reiterate once again a few of the reasons why we believe this proposal must not be approved. First, it is our firmly held opinion that such a domain will do little, if anything, to keep minors from accessing adult content on the Internet. We are not alone in that. We know that at least one Board member of ICANN believes that .XXX will not be effective in keeping minors from adult websites. If your own people believe this, what reason is there to even pretend that the protection of children is the motivating reason for .XXX? In fact, greed is the real motivation behind this application, and it is no secret that .XXX has the potential to earn ICM Registry millions of dollars. Other than that self-serving prospect, however, we can see no other compelling reason for such a TLD to exist, and indeed, we think it is likely that .XXX will result in a wave of trademark litigation that will serve no purpose but to line the pockets of intellectual property attorneys. In the meanwhile, as people and companies are bickering over domains, governments and private industry will also be eyeing the .XXX domain, with an eye not toward money but control. Already, there is pending legislation in the United States that would make .XXX mandatory, and in Australia to make ISP-level filtering the law. In the latter circumstance, the default setting for access to adult content will be off â it will not get through â unless the subscriber contacts the ISP and effectively âregistersâ to receive it. In a world in which ISPs are handing over subscriber information to government entities at the drop of a hat, we are appalled that ICANN â a avowed force for freedom and openness in the world â would allow itself to become an unwitting pawn in such an unconscionable plan to control access to lawful content. Then there is the specter of private industry â VISA, ISPs, Search Engines â effectively making the use of .XXX mandatory. There is nothing in the current ICANN/ICM Agreement that limits what such players may require in connection with .XXX. Quite apart from what these other companies might do, the current proposed ICANN-ICM agreement contains provisions that would seriously undercut the constitutional victories that we won in the U.S. Supreme Court and are fighting to establish in the lower federal courts. We are naturally quite concerned about these provisions, and we would be happy to detail our concerns. But perhaps our greatest concern has to do with the methods used by ICM Registry to gain support in the industry, and ICANNâs complicity in refusing to put into place a mechanism that assures that, with respect to a sponsored application, companies in the target industry are not promised monetary rewards or favors for their support. The Free Speech Coalition itself was approached and offered a percentage of registration fees for our support. We declined, but we suspect that others did not. In light of these possibilities, we have to wonder why ICANN has steadfastly refused to publish the names of the people and companies who support this application. We understand why ICM Registry might want to keep those names secret, but ICANNâs oft-stated mission is to maintain a posture of neutrality and transparency, and we are pained to see that neither of these laudable traits is in evidence in this case. The Free Speech Coalition is dedicated to protecting the welfare of the industry our members represent, and we will continue to provide that important service whether this application is approved or not, but we are serious when we say that profit-making schemes that endanger our hard-won freedoms do not sit well with us. How much more evidence than the legislation currently pending in Congress do you need to see that this application, in practice and precedent, could very well turn out to be one of the worst things that ever happened to the Internet, and I wonder how on earth you can oppose the idea of a tiered Internet and still support this equally foolish idea. I could go on, but the point is clear. You simply must not approve the ICM Registry application. Sincerely, Michelle L. Freridge Executive Director Free Speech Coalition |
excellent post up on ICANN:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-tld.../msg00588.html I'd like to rebutte several of the points made by Adrian J Cemel in their "Protect the unwitting; particularly the young" Adrian says: "If ICANN adopts .kids instead, look at what will be omitted: .mil, .gov, .edu, and countries, to name a few. Not to mention encyclopedia, thesaurus, dictionary and wikipedia which are listed as .com." I disagree. Each of the sites and groups Adrian mentions will have an easy time complying with any requirements to edit their content to fit a .kids TLD. Much of their material is already usable by younger audiences, and more mature material could be easily edited. Most encyclopedias already have kids friendly versions used in public schools and libraries. And ".mil" as a kids friendly group of sites? Tell me it isn't so! I've always thought the subject of how to kill our fellow human beings in a more effective manner was alot less of a subject I wanted my kids discussing, than what two loving and consenting adults might do in the privacy of their own home. In addition completely non-profit sites, whose inclusion into a .kids area was agreed was beneficial but who didn't have the money to switch, could be helped by rebates and grants in the same way the ICM proposal planned to give money to child protection services to fight child abuse. One merely has to look at any Saturday morning television program in the US, or the many child oriented cable channels to see that commercial companies will be falling all over themselves to offer websites and resources to a clearly focused niche of potential customers like children a .kids TLD will provide, funding such grants in an effective manner. And such a move then would put the cost of creating a child friendly area of the Internet on those who would profit from it, instead of like a few here in support of .xxx would have it, on the adult industry who after all does not want children as customers, don't promote their products to them, nor can children buy adult products. Trying to say pornographers should fund the effort to protect children is in reality a way to punish them by people who disapprove of their business. Which I should point out is after all a legal tax paying business no matter what some may feel. As is the case when Adrian states: "Separate and force the adult content into its own realm. There is a plethora of valuable info that should not be hidden. Plainly, separate the bad apple from the bunch." Clearly Adrian feels as many do that subjects of a sexual nature are "bad apples". Considering recent polls find over half of Americans regularly visit adult sites, most people then would disagree. Sex is not bad, talking about sexual matters among consenting adults is not bad. Consider then the whole range of sexual education sites and plethora of valuable health issues that if .xxx is approved will be forced into the cyber ghetto .xxx will create, or made to close completely by the government actions we see beginning already (re: US Congress steps to force adult sites to .xxx) I reiterate my oppositition to .xxx and hope ICANN will not approve it. David "Doc" Trammel |
another post by Reed Lee in support of .KIDS:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-tld.../msg00596.html I agree with much of what Doc Trammel has to say in response to Adrian J. Cemel's comments. I write separately to emphasize a point I made in an earlier comment (and which is equivalent to a point which Brandon Shalton has also made on these pages). Adrian Cemel is certainly correct that many, many, many general web sites are appropriate and indeed beneficial to children. To recall an example I used earlier on these pages, NASA's web site would be perfectly appropriate for children as it is for anyone interested in space science and exploration. Under a .kids solution, NASA could surely get a .kids domain name to point to the same web site as its .gov name does. Now, here's the difference between that scenario and .xxx: If an adult webmaster keeps its .com address, that will effec- tively defeat .xxx filtering because that scheme relies on what I've called "filtering out" (and what Brandon Shalton refers to as "blacklisting"). On the other hand, one of several elegant features of "filtering in" (Shaton's "whitelisting") is that it actually _works_ in a cumula- tive fashion So in the example I gave, children get to the NASA site through .kids _and_ adults get there either through .kids or .gov. And again, if general sites adopted this cumulative approach, there would be so many .kids registrations that the average cost could fall to truly trivial levels and still provide funding for free .kids registrations for deserving nonprofits and a robust enforcement agency to keep .kids clean. There are several other robust and elegant features of a filtering in mechanism which deserve further consideration. |
Jeffrey Douglas, attorney at FSC clears up the issue on his post (http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-tld.../msg00602.html) over Greg Dumas' post that he was a board director at FSC during the first open comment period: (http://forum.icann.org/lists/stld-rfp-xxx/msg00056.html)
THE LAW OFFICE OF Jeffrey J. Douglas A Professional Corporation 1717 FOURTH STREET, THIRD FLOOR SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-3319 ICANN Registry Re: Free Speech Coalition and .xxx tld To Whom It May Concern: I am the Chair of the Board of Directors of the Free Speech Coalition, the trade association of the adult entertainment industry. In his letter to ICANN dated 14 May 2004 expressing support for the “.xxx” top level domain, Greg Dumas identified himself as a member of the Board of Directors of the Free Speech Coalition. Although he had previously been a director of the Free Speech Coalition, at the time of his writing, Mr. Dumas was not then a member of the Board of Directors of the Free Speech Coalition, nor has he been since. Of course, the Free Speech Coalition has always expressed opposition to a “.xxx” tld, and remains committed to its rejection by ICANN. Sincerely, The Law Office of Jeffrey J. Douglas By: Jeffrey J. Douglas CHAIR, Free Speech Coalition |
Quote:
|
hmmm, looks like today . . . good thing he did not wait until the last minute or anything
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123