A simple observation concerning comments submitted regarding the .xxx proposal

["Quentin Boyer" <qboyer@xxxxxxx>]

To Many Persons Providing Comment on the ICM Registry Proposal for
Establishment of a .XXX Sponsored Top Level Domain:

 

Let's get something straight about the .xxx sTLD proposed by ICM Registry:
as proposed, _use of the new .xxx sTLD would be voluntary and not mandatory
for adult websites._

 

I state this emphatically because so much of what I see reported on the
subject of .xxx in the media, as well as much of the discussion of the
proposal in comments sent to ICANN, appears to focus on the question of
whether establishing a porn-only "zone" for online adult content is a good
idea. 

 

Whether or not you think that the establishment such an online "red light
district" is a good idea, approval of ICM's proposal by ICANN would not
establish such a thing. 

 

I can certainly understand why some involved in this discussion are
confused; much of the concern voiced by opponents of the new sTLD centers on
the possibility that .xxx _could_ be made mandatory.

 

ICM Registry, the company behind the current proposal to establish .xxx, has
stated publicly, repeatedly, that they would fight any attempt to mandate
use of the TLD by adult sites, or sites that offer "material harmful to
minors," or any other language that might be utilized to force use of the
TLD.

 

Some have questioned the sincerity and/or international scope of ICM's
pledge to fight attempts to make .xxx mandatory, and they have their reasons
for being skeptical. Would ICM fight all attempts to make use of the domain
mandatory for adult sites, or just laws passed by the U.S. Congress? Given
the technical and practical challenges of internationally enforcing such a
law, passed by any individual country, is that question even relevant?

 

Regardless of the above points, _approval by ICANN of the .xxx proposal
would not, and could not, by itself change the laws of the United States or
any other country._

 

I happen to be among those who are against the approval of .xxx, for reasons
that I need not go into detail about here.

 

Having said that, there are many real issues to be considered with respect
to whether ICANN should approve the .xxx TLD as it has been proposed, and
there are arguably valid points to be made by either side of the debate. 

 

What is not valid, in my opinion, is to express support or opposition to
.xxx that is rooted in fundamental errors of fact concerning the nature and
effect of the current proposal. 

 

Framing the discussion of establishment of .xxx as a question of whether a
legally-mandated "red light district" should be established for online adult
content obscures the real nature of the .xxx proposal, and encourages the
formation of opinions based on outright misconceptions. 

 

In short, if you are in favor of establishing an "adults-only zone" on the
Web that has the force of law behind it, you should be aware that supporting
.xxx as proposed by ICM is not in the best interests of your cause. 

 

Boiled down to its core, the ICM proposal ostensibly involves voluntary use
of a specific TLD by webmasters that wish to identify themselves in
conspicuous fashion as "responsible" vendors of sexually explicit materials.


 

Under the still developing rules for the proposed .xxx TLD, as explained by
ICM representatives at a recent adult industry trade conference, webmasters
with sites on the .xxx sTLD could still maintain, and even link to, their
websites located on other TLDs like .com, .net, .nl, etc., whether or not
such sites conform to the rules of the .xxx sTLD.

 

Thus, far from a mandatory adults-only zone, .xxx would be an area where
those that purport to be more "responsible" sell their wares in an easy to
identify place, while still maintaining their other (and, presumably in some
cases, less "responsible") websites.

 

Conversely, if you are against .xxx as proposed by ICM only because you
believe its approval will also establish a mandatory "red light district"
for porn sites I think you should be aware of a few things: 

 

(1) That's not true.

(2) While establishment of .xxx might be reasonably perceived as a "slippery
slope" down which we would slide into a "free speech ghetto," simply
establishing the TLD would be far from sufficient to force the adult
industry to use a specific TLD, only.

(3) We're already on that "slippery slope" whether we like it or not. The
question is not whether online adult content can be regulated, the question
is to what extent, by whom, and to whom would the standards of which
regulatory body apply.

 

I don't note these things in order to persuade you, one way or the other, as
to whether .xxx, as proposed by ICM or otherwise, is a good idea; to the
best of my knowledge, I'm just stating facts here. 

 

In forming your own opinion, I hope you find these facts useful.

 

Respectfully,

Quentin Boyer, NicheBucks.com/YNOT.com