ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[stld-rfp-xxx]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

.XXX is a viable concept and here's why

  • To: <stld-rfp-xxx@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: .XXX is a viable concept and here's why
  • From: "USICT" <director@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:59:30 -0400
  • Importance: High
  • Reply-to: <director@xxxxxxxxx>

ICANN should be commended for bringing the .xxx TLD up for review once again however despite the movement to make this a *voluntary* effort, it should become a *mandatory* requirement.

 

I have some concern regarding those that would advocate that this TLD be disillusioned or for those that believe that this should be a voluntary movement.   With the copious pornographic content being proliferated across the Internet growing daily, the public is becoming increasingly less tolerant of having it *pop* up under the noses of their children, in their workplace in front of co-workers with the threat of sexual harassment and for network administrators that must roll out newer and more expensive techniques to filter porn from the workplace has already caused enough controversy to re-introduce the .xxx TLD once again.

 

Since it's inception, nobody has at least offered a viable solution to this ever-growing problem, all they have are arguments of how and why the .xxx TLD will fail.  Efforts and expertise should be focused on making it a feasible concept instead of *shooting it in the foot*.

 

Let me dispel any of the negative comments that can be argued here.  Firstly, this approach is based on the mandatory model and requires US governmental regulation and enforcement by the FTC.  It would be ludicrous to even assume that making this voluntary that deceitful and unscrupulous websites that use terms like Barbie, Mickey Mouse and others to lure children would switch?  Mandatory is the only way and yes, this can work ~ here's how:

 

Firstly, the .xxx TLD does have the power to make other registries stop allowing adult content by enacting legislation that requires websites that are pornographic in nature regardless of the level of content be registered as .xxx and for those that do not wish to comply will simply not be routed in the US.   Those US based companies that do not comply or US Based ISP's that do not *terminate* non-compliant websites will be faced with hefty fines that by the way can be used to fund the enforcement of this TLD so the argument that this new TLD will inflate services to outrageous levels is absurd.  Yes this will cause a rate increase for an .xxx TLD but we see the same price model with Alcohol and Tobacco.  If an ISP wants to get into the porn hosting business then they still have that ability, only the content *must* be registered as .xxx.  If you are addicted to porn then you will spend the money necessary to feed your habit.   Notwithstanding that other countries that feel the same about this content can enact similar legislation and ban or place restriction on non-compliant porn sites.

 

Secondly, to assume that governmental intervention means a global movement is untrue.  The US Government can enact legislative requirements to not route non-compliant sites.  For other less concerned countries that do not wish to do this then it shall be their society that can suffer from the economic loss from the billions of dollars the porn industry reaps and it will be up to them to force their legislators to follow suit so they can still be in the *game*.   Do not assume that the US needs to *force* other countries, they will do it on their own.  countries with already strong rules governing porn will not disengage their activities, in fact it will bolster their message and serve as proclamation to their cause.  For those that patron other countries to push their porn, they will not reap the rewards of the US that contributes to *half* of all porn traffic on the net so they will be forced to either comply or use ISP's that comply with .xxx TLD regulations in order to be able to re-saturate their market.

 

(To consider a US based law in this regard as unconstitutional is ridiculous.  Firstly, it's the *Bill of Rights* not the Constitution so let's re-educate those that were asleep during history class.  The law would not infringe on these rights - read the Bill of Rights, I have ~ to even think that it would violate First Amendment is insane, pornographers still have the right to freedom of speech and fair and equal access to same by using the proper channel *.xxx TLD* nobody is taking away their ability to make their statement, just the venue has changed.  Secondly there are those that believe the *freedom of speech* applies to being able to say *you like porn* is not in the spirit of the bill.  It secures the citizen from oppressive action if they happen to disagree with their government and protects them from reciprocity from it... quote: *and to petition the government for a redress of grievances* end quote.  Making the argument that it would violate the Declaration of Independence (once again, not the constitution) that they have the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness then please see the above.

 

Thirdly, filtration of .xxx sites would become a highly effective way to eliminate porn for those that do not wish to receive it if it were mandatory that the .xxx TLD become effective.   To address the issue of *cyber squatters* this regulation would provide that you would not be able to purchase an existing .whatever as .xxx unless the registrant of the .whatever has declined to convert (not given permission).  This gives the conversion process a fair chance ~ again this can be articulated in legislation.

 

Lastly, if you don't believe that for one minute that the pornographic proliferation of the Internet is devastating to the social structure then you are sorely mistaken.  You cannot visit a newsstand / magazine sales rack and see in plain sight the front cover of a playboy or penthouse... All the .xxx TLD is merely a cover for porn on the Internet.   (For those self-professed *constitutional* experts, tell me why nobody has argued that you cannot have a cover blocking pornographic magazines at a news stand because it is *unconstitutional* ~ why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT!  You have fair and equal access to porn the same way you did before only now you need to type .xxx ~ it's time to use technology to make a safer place for children online, remove the garbage from the inbox that was not asked for, and the useless *pop-ups* that invade the computer at the workplace.

 

Mandatory registration is the only action to take to emphasize that you are serious about the problem.

 

D. Evangelista / USICT

 



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>