as proposed, .XXX serves no purpose

["Quentin Boyer" <qboyer@xxxxxxx>]

To whom it may concern,

 

Much of the support that has been voiced for the ICM Registy application to
create and operate a .XXX sponsored top level domain appears to envision a
scenario under which use of the new sTLD would be mandatory for adult sites.

 

By ICM's own assertions and assurances, it is clear that they intend for use
of the domain to be entirely voluntary. In furtherance of keeping the
measure mandatory, ICM retained noted First Amendment attorney Robert
Corn-Revere to write a 'white paper' that argues, in essence, that any law
mandating use of the proposed sTLD by adult sites owned and/or operated in
the United States would be unconstitutional. 

 

The First Amendment question doesn't even begin to address the substantial
question of whether Congress could assert and enforce any manner of
extraterritorial jurisdiction with respect to a law that mandates use of
.XXX by adult sites, meaning that even if Congress were able to pass such a
law that would be binding on US residents and business, it is substantially
less likely that they could assert any authority over, for example, a
company or individual webmaster operating in the Netherlands.

 

Thus, much of the support for .XXX is predicated either on a notion that is
currently false, namely that use of the new sTLD would be mandatory for
adult sites from the start, or on a hope that is likely empty - that the use
of the sTLD can and will become mandatory at some later date.

 

As a member of the adult internet industry, I cannot support .XXX as it has
been proposed, for the simple reason that I have no idea what I would be
supporting.

 

What will the "best practices" adopted by IFFOR consist of? We don't know.

 

As it has been asserted by its ICM that they will fight to keep .XXX a
purely voluntary measure, what shape will the eventual rules for operating a
site on the .XXX domain take regarding links to adult sites hosted on other
domains, or accepting traffic from sites on hosted on other domains? Again,
we don't know.

 

To support something so ill-defined, in my mind, is akin to supporting the
political campaign of a candidate who professes no party affiliation, hasn't
answered any questions regarding the policy positions they favor, and to do
so simply because that candidate has assured me "I am for good things,
especially those good things you will like."

 

As a long-term member of the adult internet industry, I also take exception
to the definition of "sponsoring community" that is operative in the
proposed ICM contract. The entirely circular reasoning employed in that
definition asserts that the "sponsoring community" is, entirely by
definition, anyone who supports the idea of .XXX, and is also a member of
the adult entertainment industry; anyone that is part of the adult
entertainement industry that does not support .XXX is thereby not considered
part of the "supporting community." 

 

I fail to see how this definition squares with the definitions of
"sponsoring communities" in sTLD applications previously considered by
ICANN.

 

In light of the definition of "sponsoring community" the definition included
in the ICM contract of "adult entertainment" is also highly problematic.
That definition states: "The term "Adult-Entertainment" is intended to be
understood broadly for a global medium, to include those websites that
convey Adult Entertainment, operated by webmasters who have voluntarily
determined that a system of self-identification would be beneficial."

 

This definition broadly suggests that "those websites that convey Adult
Entertainment, operated by webmasters who have voluntarily determined that a
system of self-identification would be beneficial" have only one option -
.XXX - as a "system of self-identification." Given the existence of the
Internet Content Ratings Association (ICRA.org), and the fact that many
adult sites already label themselves with ICRA tags, the suggestion inherent
in ICM's definition of "adult entertainment" tends to undermine their claim
of support from the "sponsoring community."

 

I assert this because I believe it to be true that the majority of
"responsible" webmasters that already use a "system of self-identification"
- ICRA ratings tags - actually do not support the establishment of .XXX. 

 

Only if you adopt the entirely circular, and in my opinion somewhat
disingenuous definition of "sponsoring community" as simply anyone who
supports ICM's proposal can you assert that this measure has the support of
any "community" at all.

 

For these, and other reasons, I respectfully request that ICANN decline the
current ICM contract, and strongly suggest that ICANN reconsider, in its
entirety, the very idea of establishing a .XXX TLD as defined in any such
proposal.

 

Sincerely, 

Quentin Boyer 

NicheBucks.com/YNOT.com