No Dot XXX -- Please!
I helped create the website www.DotXXXOpposition.com in order to give adult webmasters an opportunity to speak out and to learn more about why .XXX is such a bad idea not merely for the industry but for sexually frank websites in general. Part of that effort included creating the 8-minute short film ".XXX -- The Movie." I encourage you to visit the site and watch the video. If nothing else, you'll likely be amused. But the amusement will be based on reality. Much of the dialogue spoken by the Stuart Lawley character comes directly from Mr. Lawley's ham-fisted attempts to convince those of us who frequent XBiz.net that .XXX will make us all millionaires... and those of us who don't become millionaires aren't worth much. There are so many technical reasons for this sTLD to be denied, so I will focus on some of the administrative reasons. Perhaps most importantly is the fact the ICM Registry and Stuart Lawley proudly proclaim their absolute non-involvement in the adult industry. This presents a number of troubling questions: 1) What knowledge do these entities have concerning the vast range of sites likely to be included in a .XXX domain? 2) Why the pride at the lack of involvement? If the community ICM Registry wants to represent is something it wants to distance itself from, why should that community trust ICM Registry? 3) Given the disrespect Stuart Lawley has shown to individual members of the sTLD community in question, as well as his discounting of the Free Speech Coalition, its goals and its achievements (which include producing a Code of Ethics), why should the community trust ICM Registry? 4) Yesterday it was revealed that ICM Registry has hired an AD AGENCY to promote .XXX and to supposedly make the community "more responsible." More responsible than what? Than criminals who happen to have websites? The implication that the industry is not "responsible" is quite insulting -- and the idea that a British ad agency somehow knows more about online adult entertainment and the community's intricacies is laughable and insulting. 5) Often when someone from the community in question asks Stuart Lawley a question, his answer is vague or even contradictory. Where will the $10 from the outrageous $60 per domain go to? Child protection groups? Why? This is a strong suggestion that the community in question somehow harms children, which is untrue and, again, an insult. Why not fund the Free Speech Coalition, instead? It at least has a clue about how the adult industry works. 6) Although we're assured that .XXX will not become a legally enforced ghetto for sexually explicit materials, that meme is becoming increasingly popular in mainstream press articles. I do not see ICM Registry doing any real work to disprove this. 7) Ultimately -- why does the world even need .XXX? If the goal is to keep minors from accessing materials that their parents feel are inappropriate, then a .KIDS domain makes a lot more sense to me. I honestly believe that the only entities that will gain from this enterprise are Stuart Lawley and ICM Registry. Given how hostile the world economy is these days and how many online professionals are small business people such as myself, please don't provide another opportunity for greed to threaten the ability of people to make a living, however humble, online. Most sincerely, Theresa A. Reed Free Speech Coalition board member www.darklady.com www.masturbate-a-thon.org www.dotxxxopposition.com twitter/thedarklady |