In Rebuttal of Protect the unwitting; particularly the young!

["David \"Doc\" Trammel" <lapropdoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'd like to rebutte several of the points made by Adrian J Cemel in their 
"Protect the unwitting; particularly the young"

Adrian says: "If ICANN adopts .kids instead, look at what will be omitted: 
.mil, .gov, .edu, and countries, to name a few.  Not to mention encyclopedia, 
thesaurus, dictionary and wikipedia which are listed as .com."

I disagree. Each of the sites and groups Adrian mentions will have an easy time 
complying with any requirements to edit their content to fit a .kids TLD. Much 
of their material is already usable by younger audiences, and more mature 
material could be easily edited. Most encyclopedias already have kids friendly 
versions used in public schools and libraries.

And ".mil" as a kids friendly group of sites? Tell me it isn't so! I've always 
thought the subject of how to kill our fellow human beings in a more effective 
manner was alot less of a subject I wanted my kids discussing, than what two 
loving and consenting adults might do in the privacy of their own home.

In addition completely non-profit sites, whose inclusion into a .kids area was 
agreed was beneficial but who didn't have the money to switch, could be helped 
by rebates and grants in the same way the ICM proposal planned to give money to 
child protection services to fight child abuse. One merely has to look at any 
Saturday morning television program in the US, or the many child oriented cable 
channels to see that commercial companies will be falling all over themselves 
to offer websites and resources to a clearly focused niche of potential 
customers like children a .kids TLD will provide, funding such grants in an 
effective manner.

And such a move then would put the  cost of creating a child friendly area of 
the Internet on those who would profit from it, instead of like a few here in 
support of .xxx would have it, on the adult industry who after all does not 
want children as customers, don't promote their products to them, nor can 
children buy adult products.

Trying to say pornographers should fund the effort to protect children is in 
reality a way to punish them by people who disapprove of their business. Which 
I should point out is after all a legal tax paying business no matter what some 
may feel. As is the case when Adrian states: "Separate and force the adult 
content into its own realm. There is a plethora of valuable info that should 
not be hidden.  Plainly, separate the bad apple from the bunch."

Clearly Adrian feels as many do that subjects of a sexual nature are "bad 
apples". Considering recent polls find over half of Americans regularly visit 
adult sites, most people then would disagree. Sex is not bad, talking about 
sexual matters among consenting adults is not bad. Consider then the whole 
range of sexual education sites and plethora of valuable health issues that if 
.xxx is approved will be forced into the cyber ghetto .xxx will create, or made 
to close completely by the government actions we see beginning already (re: US 
Congress steps to force adult sites to .xxx)

I reiterate my oppositition to .xxx and hope ICANN will not approve it.


David "Doc" Trammel