Re: [ga] XXX and Porn Spam

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

  Well I think you answered your own question to a degree.  ICANN
needs more money, so if it can get it be condoning .XXX than regardless
of it's public face, it will do anything for more bucks it seems...

  I see no value in .XXX from the stakeholder/user side.

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>   This article is really a hoot, or is that a hooter.
> http://www.circleid.com/article/1107_0_1_0_C/
>
> Why an XXX? Somebody really! It adds nothing to the net and prohibits
> no conduct offensive, and protects no children and only provides a
> money niche for ICANN.
>
> Meanwhile the porn spam has dropped to a mere trickle. It would appear
> that some spammers paid for a large package deal for a full two weeks,
> or three or four of spams at about two a day.
> I wonder if it is financially effective. If it is at least it ain't my
> money.
>
> e
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827