NO to XXX

["Ian Kovnats" <fictionteller@xxxxxxxxx>]

To Whom It May Concern

As an adult webmaster, I shudder as this proposal continues to dog our
Industry simply because of the financial investment by one company. The goal
of this supposed TLD is to protect children from unwanted Adult Material,
however in all honesty, the responsible members of the Adult Industry
already do their part in attempting to achieve this goal. They do this by
using organizations like ICRA and SAFESURF to label their sites, and by
putting up disclaimers. The issue is that parents do NOT apply existing
filters to their computers, allowing their children access to all material
online.

Secondly, it is absurd to believe that those who break the law now, will
suddenly become compliant in the future or with the establishment of a
ghetto which XXX TLD is in reality. It is a way for one segment of society
to keep hidden or attempt to keep hidden, simply because it does not meet
with their beliefs. Just as Television allows viewers the choice to watch or
not, by clearly labelling its programs, the adult industry online does as
well, and the final choice rests with the viewers, not with more
restrictions.

This is not a zoning change, as some might construe it to be. This is
segregation of a group that lays them open to further abuse and
discrimination and needs to be stopped here. It is claimed that many adult
industry leaders support this change, however one has to ask, what is their
financial stake in this? This new TLD places an unfair economic disadvantage
on people due to its increased costs, that is not warranted.

In addition, it limits the ability of individuals to express themselves by
placing such a high cost onto simply having their own Internet Space,
because it contains adult material.

To assume this proposal will protect any minor is simply in error. It will
in fact make it easier for children to find, as it will all be segregated
into one location. If parents truly wish to deny their children access, then
the responsibility lies in them using existing filtering programs, and in
monitoring the activities of their children. It does not lay in segregating
a particular group behind some curtain, labelled XXX.

It also opens up a can of worms in regards to an individuals right of
privacy. With this proposal, those who deal in adult material are suddenly
open to no longer choosing who they reveal their business to. It becomes
easier for repressive governments to gain personal information on people,
and to allow for further abuses to occur. If suddenly some government
determines that 'gay' is not legal, at the single press of a button it can
now find who owns and operates Gay Adult Sites and force them out of
business, or worse.

This is what does happen, has happened in society, to assume it can't happen
online is naive and should be considered carefully.

Bottom line though, is this proposal will in no way protect one child. It
will not stop one predator from scouring Internet Chat Rooms or having
secret sites to promote their vile content. Nor is this proposal supported
by the overwhelming majority of independent adult webmasters, despite the
claim by ICM Registery.

I urge this body to deny totally and finally this proposal. It does not and
cannot work as claimed now just as it could not when first proposed. This is
an assault on personal freedoms, privacy and rights of choice for adults. Do
not surrender our freedoms.

Thank You
Ian Kovnats.