stop xxx

["David Norden" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

For me personally I don't see the utility of a new xxx extention, sex is 
something natural. 

xxx extention will completly miss the point, sonce you can't remove the adult 
content from the other extentions.

To protect young people I find it more interesting to use obligatory TAGGING 
for adult content.

David Norden, www.hot-business.com 

Stop to the .XXX extension!

Most likely you are aware of, and gravely concerned about, the renewed interest 
in creating a .XXX TDL. Last May, FSC successfully opposed an attempt by Stuart 
Lawley, and his company ICM, to have .XXX accepted and implemented by ICANN 
(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). Mr. Lawley and his 
company stand to make millions from this deal-at the expense of the adult 
entertainment industry.

.XXX is a very bad idea because:
. It "ghettoizes" the industry, making adult entertainment an easy target for 
anti-industry extremists and government intrusion.

. It will add, unnecessarily, to the cost of doing business. At $60 per URL per 
year, the cost to a member could reach tens of thousands of dollars annually. 
Many in the adult entertainment industry will purchase and park addresses, 
realizing no benefit to this added expense. Finally, there will be countless 
battles for names, and the resulting arbitration will be costly.

. If a .XXX domain becomes available, it is likely that the United States and 
other countries will try to make it mandatory and subject to trans-Internet 
filtering that could effectively eliminate much of the adult content currently 
available on the Web.

. The .XXX option could enable the industry's enemies to convert even a 
voluntary .XXX domain use into an effectively mandatory requirement by 
pressuring private parties, such as credit card processors, to require .XXX use 
and compliance. In this way, ICM through unchecked rule-making could "back 
door" all the governmental regulations that we have beaten back. If that 
happens the industry would not have its most potent weapon, the First Amendment 
to challenge ICM because ICM is not a governmental entity.

. The ambiguity with which ICM plans to establish its governing board is of 
grave concern as there exists strong potential for censorship, which is clearly 
not in the best interest of the industry or for ICANN.