The most obvious question about .XXX that NO ONE can answer
 

Lets assume all these domains exist, are developed and the domain name itself is part of a trademark and all feature adult content.

sex.aero
sex.asia
sex.biz
sex.cat
sex.com
sex.coop
sex.info
sex.int
sex.jobs
sex.mobi
sex.museum
sex.name
sex.net
sex.org
sex.pro
sex.tel
sex.travel
sex.ac
sex.ad
sex.ae
sex.af
sex.ag
sex.ai
sex.al
sex.am
sex.an
sex.ao
sex.aq
sex.ar
sex.as
sex.at
sex.au
sex.aw
sex.ax
sex.az
sex.ba
sex.bb
sex.bd
sex.be
sex.bf
sex.bg
sex.bh
sex.bi
sex.bj
sex.bm
sex.bn
sex.bo
sex.br
sex.bs
sex.bt
sex.bv
sex.bw
sex.by
sex.bz
sex.ca
sex.cc
sex.cd
sex.cf
sex.cg
sex.ch
sex.ci
sex.ck
sex.cl
sex.cm
sex.cn
sex.co
sex.cr
sex.cu
sex.cv
sex.cx
sex.cy
sex.cz
sex.de
sex.dj
sex.dk
sex.dm
sex.do
sex.dz
sex.ec
sex.ee
sex.eg
sex.er
sex.es
sex.et
sex.eu
sex.fi
sex.fj
sex.fk
sex.fm
sex.fo
sex.fr
sex.ga
sex.gb
sex.gd
sex.ge
sex.gf
sex.gg
sex.gh
sex.gi
sex.gl
sex.gm
sex.gn
sex.gp
sex.gq
sex.gr
sex.gs
sex.gt
sex.gu
sex.gw
sex.gy
sex.hk
sex.hm
sex.hn
sex.hr
sex.ht
sex.hu
sex.id

PLEASE for the love of God, offer a single reasonable explanation as to how all of these domain owners are going to move to a single domain - "sex.xxx" WHILE protecting their legal rights, their registered marks, while respecting international tradelaw/trade agreements and so on and so forth.

I have yet to see a single rational, reasonable explanation as to how this could happen.

In fact, the whole hysteria is based solely on the remarks of one idiot - Stuart Lawley and the so called position of his company, which have been making the claims that this will happen WHICH IS HIS BASIS FOR MEETING ICANN's APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS to demonstrate a need for .xxx and to demonstrate community support. And thats it. There is nothing else. And thats it. Just one guy talking shit and not one person has explained yet how this can actually happen.


http://www.gwally.com/news/photos/catintinfoilhat.jpg

not sure but , sexhu.xxx ?

Only 1 will have the trademark and he will get it.

They aren't. Also, any trademarks would be for the exact domain and not the word 'sex'. You could keep your trademark, it would just be useless for the most part.

Dude, you are seriously, one of the dumber people on this board. Your posts make me uncomfortable out of embarrassment for you when you are talking. You don't even seem to know what a trademark is or how it is applied to domains assuming the exact domain itself is not the mark.

To use an example that your tiny, low functioning brain might be able to grasp Steve Cohen who used to own sex.com won shitloads of domains from people that had the word "sex" in them.

No shit, moron. So tell me, since he owned the trademark for sex, meaning that he was the only one legally allowed to use the mark in that way, exactly what trademark did all of the other sex. extensions have? They either had none or had a trademark on their full sex.org or similar extension.

Which makes your fucking original question even more stupid because only one person could have any specific phrase trademarked for porn use. They would get the domain and everyone else would have to fuck off and use a new URL, exactly like I said.

You might want to fire up your last few brain cells and use them before calling someone stupid.

You assume the parties involved will make ethical, well-informed decisions and you fail to realize that the ICM Registry is only driven by greed and the politicians involved are willing to anything to hold on to and gain more power (including forcing their own personal morality or that of their target audience on to others).

Btw: 'Legal rights' under current laws mean nothing if we are talking about people who have the intention to change laws for their own personal and political gains.

What Cohen did was wrong and BS.....

He tried in the 90's to get me to give over sexx.com - tried to use the Latham (sp) act or whatever it's called.

I told him to deal with my counsel - he never got anything....

It's not going to do anything but make the .xxx people lots of money:2 cents:

That is exactly one of the issues with this.

They wouldn't need to. They could make "using a non-.xxx domain for an adult website" illegal starting tomorrow... the fact that you've been using a .com domain for your site for years wouldn't mean anything.

Alcohol used to be legal, but in the 20's they made the sale, distribution and manufacturing of alcohol for consumption illegal...

Hemp used to be legal, they made it illegal and forced a lot of farmers out of business.

....

First of all, ICM, like any business anywhere on the planet is driven by the desire to make money. Like him or not, it is no more complicated than that.

Further, you are assuming that a massive government (US government) conspiracy will take place. And you are further confusing US law with the fact that this is an issue of international law.

This is the point you dodge, because you know you have no answers and you know you will never produce a sensible one. The US Government can only pass a law affecting US Citizens. It can't force Canadian Citizens to shut down their websites. Or German Citizens, or Romanian or whatever.

There is no way to do what you guys are suggesting will happen and be able to satisfy every body of law in every country, international law that might be applicable as well as any and all applicable international agreements (trade agreements etc)

:2 cents:

You can't even explain how the US Government can legally do this and address all these complex issues. It has nothing to do with "ethics".

This is what i have been hearing from everyone on this issue for years now

"Oh my God... oh my God,... they are coming for us... oh my God, ... oh my God"

And the reason so few people give it any attention is because no one has been able to construct a single reasonable argument as to what will happen that doesn't involve a large web of highly improbable government conspiracies.

It is absolutely incredible that a group of international business people are up in arms about the remarks of one person and his stated intention to do something thats highly improbable or near impossible and something that presents so many massive legal hurdles that they can't even be counted.

Instead of conspiracy theories, why not unify yourselves behind a single message like "He says he wants to do this and for that reason, we are against it". Rather than constructing bizarre and delusional arguments that few other than yourselves could even get on board with?

They made alcohol illegal without violating existing law. They made hemp illegal without violating any existing law. They did these things without violating any international laws. As is typically the case with any law.

To use your analogy, you are afraid the US Government is going to pass a law requiring all alcohol producers and distributors to give up their rights and come under the umbrella of one single private company (which has no legal authority to do anything) and that company will then start dictating the terms of how alcohol is processed, distributed, sold and possibly consumed. Thats not the same as voting to make it illegal.

Nothing wrong with wanting to make money. "Wanting to make money" is what drives progress.

The problems is "aggression". "Wanting to make money and using the force of the state to help you make money" = an act of aggression and unethical.

No conspiracy at all... That how politicians work... If they can do something that will gain them votes (power, influence, money), they will do it, no matter what the consequences will be for some small minority (us).

It's already doing just that. It's shutting down Canadian pharmacy websites that are hosted in Canada, run by Canadians and legal in Canada.

I already addressed that last week in the other thread...

Everything we do "has to do with ethics".

In New Hampshire, the only place to buy liquor is at a state-run liquor store (you can get beer or wine at grocery stores, but anything 'harder' is from the state, which indeed controls "how alcohol is processed, distributed, sold and possibly consumed.")

The price is lower, public safety increased and the revenues fund projects that would otherwise require the collecting and spending of (my) tax dollars.

But back to the OP, one thing to consider in these "what ifs" is that the number of adult sites with registered trademarks is countable on one hand -- that might be a slight exageration, but not by much.

A lot of people have been doing just that for several years now. Just read the comments at ICANN.

Governments around the world have already done things like that for hundreds of years... Central banking: the governments gives (sells) a charter to a private company. Prostitution: in some cities prostitutes are only allowed to work in certain area's or in certain buildings (in Antwerp, Belgium, they even have a kind of prostitution shopping mall). Alcohol, in lots of countries alcohol can only be sold in certain hotels, but not in stores. Porn magazines.... etc etc etc