ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] XXX

  • To: "Hugh Dierker" <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, "ga" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] XXX
  • From: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:22:26 -0500
  • References: <81734.40152.qm@web52908.mail.yahoo.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It was always a ridiculous proposal in the first place.

1. Those who have porn websites on dot com domain names are not about to give them up. They have spent millions branding their domains, getting search engine saturation, link popularity, etc. 
2. If they were forced to move, the lawsuits would be huge to recover damages to their legal businesses.
3. XXX will not increase or decrease the amount of porn on the web. it will just make money for the registries and registrars who sell more domain names by telling people how extremely valuable they will be. The domainers will rush in and snap them up.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hugh Dierker 
  To: ga 
  Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 11:01 AM
  Subject: [ga] XXX

  Maybe it is just me but I think existing laws are enough to restrict horrible things like child pornography. We can always do more to enforce the rules, regs and laws but they are there.
  I have trouble with all the restrictions being placed on the XXX proposals, not that the restrictions are bad, but that it would be ICANN enforcing them. ICANN is simply not designed to enforce content of websites and once they cross that slippery slope there will be no turning back.



  Don't pick lemons.
  See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

  • References:

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>