No to .XXX

["tick" <tick@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello xxx-icm-agreement,

you have some very good points.  but i fail to see how ele to stop minor from 
accessing pron sites.  i mean, if all smut was .xxx, the owner of the pc or 
comcast (for underage subscribers for example) could block .xxx.  it isnt a 
free speech violation, since those under 18 dont have free speech.  not till 
they turn 18.  i dont see why it would cost any more than .com net org or 
whatever.  someone somewher has to write a 2 line script.  that doesnt ammount 
to billions.  firefox would hav to build in support?  thier a pvt company.  i 
dont see wher ethe billions come from.  when this issue first came up, i think 
it was cisco, who basically runs the internet, might have been another large 
bandwith company, was all for the idea, then totall reversed on it.  i think 
its a great idea.  would help track spam and renegade sites also.  you wanna 
get rid of child porn, it would be easier to track if thier all in 1 place.

also, it would open a new rhelm up.  for subversive information, that some 
people seem to dislike so much.  i see alot of places on the internet, thier 
host seems to have t echnical probbs all t he time, but on with that site, no 
others.  GNN is a good example of this.  

i would have to say i am for the .xxx, but i do not know everything about it.  
i might be missing something.  i dont see where additional cost comes into 
play.  it should be the same as org net or com.

also im interested in this ad i saw.  is it true that you offer 10 G's for the 
arrest and conviction of a child pron peddler or molestor?  if so,. where do i 
submit info.  i can get ya IP's all day long, ones gotta be right.



Best regards, 
  
tick
tick@xxxxxxxxx
2007-03-24