New .xxx extension - webmasters will not use it

[Rhesus <rhesus@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear ICANN board


It has come to my attention that after the (temporary?) rejection of the
application for a new extension .xxx by ICM last year, the latter have
revived their attempts to have this domain approved. The matter has been
heavily commented, and mostly criticised, last year, and to a lesser extent
in the past few weeks (please refer to the public forum on ICANN.org). It
appears comments are mostly from concerned parents who fear the new
extension will legitimise and spread online pornography.

Although a large number of 'adult' webmasters have expressed their concern
and opposition to the introduction of the .xxx extension, some
misconceptions appear to exist. I feel these have mainly been seeded by
press releases by ICM registry. One of their claims is that most of the
online adult entertainment industry would favour the creation of the .xxx
extension. An 'adult' webmaster myself, I can assure you this is pertinently
untrue, and unlogical to say the least. The new extension would by no means
serve the interests of the target community, the 'adult' webmasters, as it
provides no extra value. It's unlikely that any webmasters will actually
switch from their .coms, .nets etc to a new .xxx presence as it would do
nothing than threaten their clientele and put them in a dependent position.

Claims made by ICM registry that their new .xxx will help fight child
pornography are 'fried air'. Criminals are smart enough not to use .xxx
domains to show their illegal content on, and introducing this new extension
will do nothing to curb the flourishing child pornography networks that
already exist. While I support any initiative to minimise such child abuse,
I feel that it's not a registry's task to police content on its domains. It
would form a threat to free speech.

With a retail price of around $70 per .xxx domain, it's painfully obvious
what ICM's real and only motives behind their application are.

Everything is again outlined in this excellent article in the British
newspaper 'the Guardian':
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1997492,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=20<
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1997492,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=20>
.

I hope my email will make you realise what the true story behind this
application is, and I kindly ask you to vote against on your next meeting.

Kind regards,

David Se