<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
I oppose .XXX
- To: xxx-icm-agreement@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: I oppose .XXX
- From: Footman <Footman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:14:00 -0500
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Dear ICANN,<br>
<br>
I'm in the adult entertainment industry and I strongly oppose the
".XXX." I'm an adult webmaster and I have 10 websites I manage at the
moment with 5 more coming online in the coming months. <br>
<br>
<blockquote><i>As stated by the Free Speech Coalition in a recent
members letter:<br>
<br>
.XXX is a very bad idea because:<br>
• It “ghettoizes” the industry, making
adult entertainment an easy
target for anti-industry extremists and government intrusion.<br>
<br>
• It will add, unnecessarily, to the cost of doing
business. At $60
per URL per year, the cost to a member could reach tens of thousands of
dollars annually. Many in the adult entertainment industry will
purchase and park addresses, realizing no benefit to this added
expense. Finally, there will be countless battles for names, and the
resulting arbitration will be costly.<br>
<br>
• If a .XXX domain becomes available, it is likely that
the United
States and other countries will try to make it mandatory and subject to
trans-Internet filtering that could effectively eliminate much of the
adult content currently available on the Web.<br>
<br>
• The .XXX option could enable the industry’s
enemies to convert
even a voluntary .XXX domain use into an effectively mandatory
requirement by pressuring private parties, such as credit card
processors, to require .XXX use and compliance. In this way, ICM
through unchecked rule-making could “back door” all the governmental
regulations that we have beaten back. If that happens the industry
would not have its most potent weapon, the First Amendment to challenge
ICM because ICM is not a governmental entity. <br>
<br>
• The ambiguity with which ICM plans to establish its
governing
board is of grave concern as there exists strong potential for
censorship, which is clearly not in the best interest of the industry
or for ICANN. <br>
</i></blockquote>
Please do not let this happen!<br>
<br>
Footman<br>
</body>
</html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|