<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
I am an adult webmaster opposed to the .XXX TLD
- To: <xxx-icm-agreement@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: I am an adult webmaster opposed to the .XXX TLD
- From: "John Foulds" <jayeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:46:20 -0500
Sirs
In her email yesterday, Kathy Kleiman asks ICANN board members "What are we
scared of?"
This is not even a relevant question. If ICANN's guidelines are to mean
anything (and if not, why not simply dream up every imaginable TLD and dole
them out to existing registrars?), there have to be positive reasons to create
new TLD's, not merely a lack of reasons to not do so. Within the context of
.XXX that positive reason is supposed to be the wish of the community concerned
to have its own TLD. The overwhelming public voice of the online pornography
community says that it does NOT want this TLD.
ICM claim otherwise. But where is the evidence to support that claim? Where is
there anything to suggest that beyond a few speculators who may have talked
privately with ICM, more than a tiny minority of adult webmasters want this TLD?
ICANN must be doing itself tremendous damage by repeatedly entertaining this
application. Stripped to the basics, someone from outside the adult industry
saw a way to make money from the labor of those who work in it. That person
came along to ICANN and asked what must be done to comply with the regulations.
To strengthen his application and draw attention away from the key point that
he does not have industry support, he plays the child protection card and
offers to spread around some of the money this TLD will surely earn if it is
created. His application fails, so he tweaks it some more and tries again. Why
is it apparently so difficult to see this as anything another than a
transparently cynical attempt to manipulate ICANN's procedures and protections,
totally contrary to their intent?
There may not be other geese quite as ripe for plucking as the online adult
industry, but if this application is approved it invites others who have no
connection with the community concerned, to submit similar applications. This
is surely not what ICANN intended.
Please reject this application and finally bury it.
Yours faithfully
John Foulds (adult webmaster)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|