ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[stld-rfp-xxx]


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

.XXX exposed

  • To: <stld-rfp-xxx@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: .XXX exposed
  • From: "Brandon Shalton" <brandon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 08:04:53 -0500

Some information about the proposed .XXX

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5176620.html

An excerpt from the article:

--------------------------------------------

Under his proposal, submitted last week to the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), .xxx domain names would be sold for $70
to $75 each. Child pornography would be verboten, but pretty much anything
else would be permissible, Lawley said. "Apart from child pornography, which
is completely illegal, we're really not in the content-monitoring business."

Instead, Lawley and his partners are in the business to make money. A report
from Reuters Business Insight in February 2003 calculated that sex
represented two-thirds of all online content revenue in 2001, and that it
had ballooned to a $2.5 billion industry since then. Lawley estimates that
25 percent of all Internet search queries are related to sex and that over a
million adult domain names exist. Owning the rights to sell pieces of .xxx
real estate, he concluded, would be a perfect way to make money off of
consumers' insatiable appetite for online raunch and ribaldry.

Free-expression issues

The way the proposed .xxx registry would work is twofold. Lawley's company,
ICM Registry, would handle the technical aspects of running the master
database of .xxx sex sites. For its troubles, it would charge $60 a domain
name and let resellers add their own markup of perhaps $10 to $15 per
domain.

A second, nonprofit organization, the International Foundation for Online
Responsibility would be in charge of setting the rules for .xxx. It would
have a seven-person board of directors, including a child advocacy advocate,
a free-expression aficionado, and, naturally, at least one person from the
adult entertainment industry. As president and chairman of ICM Registry,
Lawley gives himself just one vote on the board.

----------------------------------



$75 per domains?!?!?!?!?!?!?  And you thought Network Solutions was bad.


.XXX has been proposed to be a way to "save the children", but it is quite
evident it's just a way to make money in the name of children.

While the word "voluntary" has been used when describing how webmasters of
adult entertainment sites can choose to register a .XXX, the "voluntary"
point is diminished as there is a concerted effort to propose legislation to
congress to make it a law to create a "red light district" that is .XXX



This article brings up the point about Congress getting involved
http://news.com.com/2010-1026-5176611.html?tag=nefd_acpro


An excerpt:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Protecting children

This is not just a theoretical concern. Back in 2000, before Lawley got
involved as president, ICM Registry applied to run the .xxx domain. But
ICANN shot down the proposal.

It didn't take Congress long to get involved. At a hearing in February 2001,
Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., demanded to know why ICANN didn't approve .xxx "as
a means of protecting our kids from the awful, awful filth which is
sometimes widespread on the Internet." Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.,
griped to a federal commission that .xxx was necessary to force adult
Webmasters to "abide by the same standard as the proprietor of an X-rated
movie theater."

---------------------------------------------------------

In this MSNBC interview, you can see how other child advocacy groups are
jumping on the .XXX bandwagon:

http://msnvideo.msn.com/video/default.aspx?prepend=fe95dee5-2fef-463e-9647-e1c9ef6600b6,2628fa5b-c478-4ebe-a44a-17ff664ce495,c402a917-0c8f-4aa1-9832-33cf350559f1&autoStart=0&menu=Home%20and%20Living&menuItem=NBC%20Today&setcp=b



By charging upwards of $75/domain, it does leave alot of room for
"commissions".  How many organizations that support .XXX will be receiving
"sales commissions"?


Technology is the answer to preventing kids from seeing the "bad stuff", not
legislation.  Parents are the first line of defense and need tools, not
crutches, to keep their kids "safe".


-brandon
Internet Activist, http://www.FightThePatent.com

brandon -at - FightThePatent.com





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