No to .XXX

["Tom Hymes" <tom@xxxxxxxx>]

To the ICANN Board of Directors,
 
The .XXX seminar at last month's XBIZ Hollywood Conference is now
available for viewing at
http://www.xbizhollywood.com/seminar_videos.php. A transcript is being
prepared and will be made available to the Board and the public as soon
as it is ready. 
 
Obviously, the vast majority of people in the room for that seminar were
opposed to .XXX, but I think it is important for the Board to keep in
mind that the assertion that the attendees that day represented some
sort of California contingent is false. As is common at all these
conferences, people come from all over the country and world. We did not
poll the people in that room to see where they were from, but assuming
they constituted a representative sampling of the overall conference
attendees, then at least 40% of them were not from California. This may
be a small point to make, but Mr. Lawley seemed to think that the
geographic demographics of the attendees was important when asked why
those in the room were overwhelmingly against .XXX.
 
But his assertion demands further comment, because it reveals an almost
incomprehensible point of view on his part about the industry he claims
supports his application. The fact is, California is home to most of the
major adult entertainment companies, especially those that create adult
content for distribution through the many platforms that adult content
is delivered to consumers. While many adult webmasters live and work
elsewhere, many if not most do business with California companies. To
state that California-based adult companies somehow represent a
divergent, less-responsible group is to instantaneously discount the
core of the American adult entertainment industry. 
 
I might add that the Board would do well to consider the opinion of all
adult entertainment companies, and not just those that can be currently
identified as being "online." Everyone in the industry has or is moving
online, the Internet is everyone's future, if not current, home, and
this decision will impact everyone in the industry, no matter their
current positioning. 
 
One last point on the support of the sponsored-community question. Mr.
Lawley, when asked about recent expressions of opposition within the
adult community, has stated that ICANN signed off on that point, and the
current comment period is all about the merits of the reworked Appendix
S. But when we read the minutes from the last ICANN meeting, it is
apparent that the question of sponsored-community support is still very
much on the table. Technically, Mr. Lawley may be correct - the Board
has signed off on that part of the application - but that was another
Board, and we now have what is essentially a new contract. In addition,
as has been noted by both GAC and many others, the question of why the
Board approved the sponsored-community support provision when ICANN's
own Sponsorship and Community Evaluation Committee identified as
particularly deficient ICM's claims of support remains an unanswered
question. 
 
I know for a fact that several previous industry supporters have
officially changed their minds and now oppose the creation of a .XXX
TLD. These are not small companies, but include some of the industry's
most longstanding leaders. The Board should know - and I certainly hope
does know - who these companies are. We as a community do not, because
the old list of supporters was never made public, but the fact remains
that companies have changed their minds, and if ICANN chooses to ignore
it and approve this application- especially in light of the fact that
the current contract is, in its own words, "unprecedented," - then it
will be violating the spirit of its own process, and perhaps even the
letter.
 
Just one last point on the unprecedented nature of the current
application, which has primarily to do with the new oversight dimension.
CAG was concerned about IFFOR's ability to guarantee that the policies
it imposed on .XXX sites would be followed. To address that, a third
party will be contracted to manually and automatedly spider .XXX sites
to ensure compliance, and ultimately ICANN, by way of a newly formed
ICANN liaison, will oversee the entire process. I have personally been
dealing with adult Internet issues since 1999, as a trade journalist and
as Communications Director for the Free Speech Coalition, and I have to
say that I do not think ICANN is the appropriate body to take on that
job. It is not your mission, nor is it anywhere near your area of
expertise. It is not Stuart Lawley's either - not by a long shot - but
that is another, if related, matter. 
 
Is the liaison going to also advocate for industry rights, or even be
aware of them? Is the liaison going to become an expert in the many,
many issues that face the adult entertainment industry, and involve him
or herself in the ongoing battles that we face in this country and
around the world? Will the liaison arbitrate when IFFOR reaches an
impasse, or will they simply rubber stamp IFFOR decisions, no matter how
they are arrived at? What I mean is, why is there a liaison in the first
place if IFFOR was designed to develop and oversee policies for the .XXX
space? I'll answer that. IFFOR was in fact an incomplete concept that
GAC clearly and rightly identified as being an insufficient mechanism
for dealing with what will be an extremely complex mission: setting
policy on a global basis for all adult websites. The solution does not
even begin to address the problem, but merely places an unwanted band
aid on what could very well be a severe hemorrhage. 
 
Industries need to self-regulate, and the multi-layered scheme that is
now being proposed is more of a regulatory framework that
self-regulatory. As honestly as I can, I am telling you that you do not
want this job. You will come to rue the day that you became the defacto
overseers of the global adult community. Leave our policing to us and to
governments. With all due respect, we can and do fight our own battles
more effectively than you ever can, and we certainly do not want to be
put in a position where we are at odds with a body that was never
intended to police adult speech on the Internet. 
 
Sincerely,
 
Tom Hymes