ICM .xxx Proposal

["Barry M.Gray" <barry.gr4y@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

March 27, 2007

To: The Board of Directors of ICANN
Re: ICM .xxx Proposal

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board;

I think that Tim Hymes' letter shows the sort of self regulation that ICM
would deliver to the industry that it says it would regulate.
http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm-agreement/msg01637.html

Once again, I must object to the overall idea of content segregated TLD's.
The ICANN board should take note of the anti-porn emails that they have
received. Both adult industry people and the anti-porn folks agree that .xxx
in not a good thing but for diametrically opposed reasons.

Since very few support .xxx, and the industry members that are its targeted
market have little interest in using the TLD, ICANN should reject this
proposal with prejudice, and not entertain it again in the future.

The principles of  freedom of speech set forth in the United States' 1st
Amendment were set forth to protect all speakers, those of the majority
opinion, those of the minority opinion as well as those of the repugnant
fringes. Many other nations have similar freedoms of speech and publication
parallel. The adult industry is commercial in nature and can coexist in the
.com and other TLD's along  with other commercial speakers.

Last week, in the matter of AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, v. ALBERTO R.
GONZALES, No. 98-5591, in deciding the issues of protected adult speech and
the viability of content filters, the Honorable Lowell A. Reed, Jr., Senior
Judge of the  Eastern District of Pennsylvania said;

 "I may not turn a blind eye to the law in order to attempt to satisfy my
urge to protect this nation's youth by upholding a flawed statute,
especially when a more effective and less restrictive alternative is readily
available (although I do recognize that filters are neither a panacea nor
necessarily found to be the ultimate solution to the problem at hand)."

 This landmark court ruling forecloses the  arguments of the anti-porn folks
that have responded, in my opinion. If their true motivations and interests
are in avoiding contact or exposure to what is in their belief
"objectionable" or "harmful to minors" Internet content. Install or use a
content filter for now  is what Judge Reed's  judgment says, a message to
those that want to censor to self-censor their choices, issue closed.

ICM has no legal standing to regulate adult content and will offer no
codified due process enforced under the laws of any nation. Should ICANN
agree to the ICM proposal it will have the potential of abuse by legislative
authority and result in costly litigation by any party negatively affected
or whose interests in other TLD's is threatened. The cost  may very well
turn out to be far beyond the $60.00 proposed annual registration fees for a
.xxx TLD name for the adult content providers that have registered their
domains in full compliance and under the rules that ICANN promulgated. ICANN
should respect the interests of all registrants first, then  consider
opinions of the general public in matters of TLD authorization.

I strongly urge the members of the ICANN Board to reject the .xxx proposal
as unsupported by the registrants of the market it is proposed for and not
to revisit this .xxx proposal again in the future.

Respectfully submitted,

Barry M. Gray
The Compro-Serve Companies
Member Free Speech Coalition
Legal Moderator www.ynot.com


Notice to Recipient: ICANN is authorized to publish this letter in its
entirety with the email domain redacted.