ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[xxx-tld-agreement]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Opposed to .XXX

  • To: xxx-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Opposed to .XXX
  • From: jason@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: 10 May 2006 01:17:05 -0000

To Whom It May Concern:

I am opposed to the establishment of a .xxx top-level domain. 

Implementing a .xxx top-level domain will simply constitute a discriminatory 
and repressive action by segregating adult sites. 

Individuals who are involved with .xxx have deep roots in the industry and are 
not so much concerned about protecting children for example but actually lining 
their own pockets. Charging premium prices for .xxx domains and not to mention 
a markup by resellers doesn't help anyone but these individuals. 

Let?s not forget that the Internet was designed to be a self-regulated 
non-controllable worldwide platform for communications. Creation of this 
top-level domain is a direct threat to freedom of speech on the Internet as we 
know it.  

You also create immense problems for domain owners. If someone owns sex.com, 
another individual owns sex.net and a third individual owns sex.org and they 
are all adult content based, who would be allowed to get sex.xxx? That impedes 
on the inherent right to conduct commerce for the losers and will create 
immense legal and financial damages liability for your organization and others 
involved in this .xxx top-level domain implementation.

Upon implementing a policy of this nature where you will segregate websites in 
attempts to classify them adult or non-adult, who decides what constitutes an 
adult site? What if it is a personals site with forums where adult discussions 
take place? Is that then adult and required to move to .xxx? Who is to say? 

Implementation of filtering software by companies such as Microsoft for their 
operating systems, educating parents on filtering software already available, 
and not using the Internet as a babysitting tool are all great solutions for 
protecting our children online.

This is an unnecessary, unconstitutional, and a ridiculous concept lacking 
purpose. It will simply lead to endless litigation upon implementation. 

I feel it should be abandoned.

Regards,

Jason



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>