Another opposition to the .XXX TLD.

[socal kev <socalkev67@xxxxxxxxx>]

When the arguments in favor of the .XXX domain are closely examined, it seems 
to me that none of them are very persuasive. Moreover, when the other actions 
being taken by the U.S. Government are taken into account, it is clear that 
this initiative is nothing more than yet another attempt by them to regulate 
out of existence what the Constitution and Supreme Court (we hope) will not let 
them directly abolish.
   
  How, exactly, is the .XXX domain going to keep children from accessing adult 
sites? In order to let adults access these sites, while barring children, some 
type of mechanism will have to exist to limit access to these sites. The answer 
we keep hearing is that filtering technology will be used - yet, the U.S. 
Justice Department is currently arguing, in the Child Online Protection Act 
case, that filtering technologies are inadequate and that credit card walls 
have to be established to protect children from accessing adult content. The 
credit card companies clearly state that their cards are not to be used for 
adult verification purposes, thus causing sites that use such a mechanism to 
risk losing their ability to process cards - which would effectively put them 
out of business. Furthermore, this solution would only apply to U.S. based 
sites, thereby not really diminishing the ability of children to access adult 
content at all - and what about free sites; how do they comply
 with the law - they either have to charge, or be shut down. There is much 
irony in the DOJ's position regarding searches for pornography. If that many 
people are trying to gain access to such content, is it not a "community 
standard," which is a defense under the obscenity laws?
   
  But that is not the main issue here. It is only being pointed out to show 
that the U.S. Government's sole intention is to shut down adult sites, not 
regulate them nor come up with an effective way to protect children. Many adult 
webmasters have used the Internet Content Ratings Association ratings system, 
as well as other child protection technologies, to prevent children from 
accessing their content. In its new operating system, Microsoft is promising 
vastly improved parental controls and filtering technologies. If the browsers 
and search engine companies worked together with ICRA and other groups to 
improve detection and filtering, a solution for all children could be possible. 
But the DOJ is not interested in any solution that does not allow them an 
avenue to shut down sites; they want mandatory FTC labeling for adult sites - 
ah, yet another list they can use to prosecute and shut people down by using. 
Imagine my surprise; labeling doesn't work with ICRA, but will
 through the FTC? Does anyone doubr the real reason for this is so the FTC, one 
of the most draconian agencies of the federal government, can pass crushing 
regulations on how adult sites can advertise?
   
  How, exactly, is protecting children possible with the "voluntary" .XXX  top 
level domain (TLD)? Children will know, by typing a a name and .XXX, an adult 
site would appear - and searching for porn would be much easier unless - oh, 
yeah, filters are used. Not to mention, the ink will not even be dry on the 
establishing documents before the U.S. Congress will be trying to pass laws 
making it mandatory, adding all kinds of new restrictions and conditions, such 
as explicitly allowing any ISP to totally filter out .XXX traffic, with no 
penalties, or charging money to be able to access the .XXX domain. And once 
again, all these restrictions would only be on U.S. based sites - unless this 
truly is a mandatory thing for every country and every TLD.
   
  Now, just for a moment, consider this - who gets to own the site sex.xxx? The 
owner of sex.com - sex.net - sex.co.uk - sex.de - just on and on. Some names 
are probably found in several TLDs - and only one gets the .XXX version? 
Besides making a ton of lawyers very wealthy, and a lot of webmasters much 
poorer, who, besides the .XXX domain registry company, which will be selling 
these domains at about $60 a pop, apparently (to start), and registrars who got 
paid for domains that might be seized away from their owners, benefits from all 
this?  The situation is even worse if people have to give up their TLDs - or, 
if its just some TLDs that are affected. If sex.com and sex.net are abolished, 
but sex.de gets to stay, how fair is this? And, oh yeah - who, exactly, gets to 
determine what has to be behind the .XXX wall? Does the Netherlands, with its 
liberal society, have to follow the same rules as say Saudi Arabia, with its 
much more conservative view of sexual matters, on what
 has to be placed behind the .XXX wall?
   
  The war being waged by the U.S Government on adult sites is being waged on 
several fronts - the COPA, the CDA (Communications Decency Act), 18 U.S.C. 
2257, FTC labels, and abandoning Internet neutrality to allow the throttling 
and blocking of web sites and TLDs, a measure currently well on its way through 
Congress. Does anyone doubt that the .XXX domain would be the first one to be 
blocked, once this becomes legal? Does anyone else see the convenience in the 
timing of these two measures - net neutrality being abolished and the 
establishment of the .XXX TLD - both happening at almost the same time? 
   
  As discussed earlier, every so-called benefit of .XXX is already possible, 
should the ICRA labels be used as a guide by the technology companies, as the 
V-chip does now in televisions. But the DOJ is not interested in protecting 
children; their real goal is to stamp out the existence of the adult industry 
completely. No matter what ANY adult webmaster does - label with ICRA, put all 
material behind a credit card wall - the DOJ will still consider the content to 
be obscene and potentially prosecute it. .XXX is just another tool to help them 
in that task, and should not be accepted by ICANN. 

                
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates 
starting at 1¢/min.