Re: [ga] Why the .XXX Domain is a Bad Idea That Won't Die

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well reasoned here, I concur and would add the danger of precedence. What next?
   
  e

kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Pretty much agree with you on all counts here jeff. The trap is for more 
than those in the porn industry. The trap is for compnies to register their 
domain names in xxx to ensure it is not used which is pretty much just a 
blackmail scheme. The other trap is thinking that the porn industry can be 
forced to move to a new tld without compensating them for lost marketing 
dollars and sales. Since what they do is legal, they would have legitimate 
reason to sue whoever forced that mose. Besides that, it's a trap because 
the forced move would never be enforceable on everyone form every country.

There are many reasons NOT to create an XXX TLD, but only because of the 
reasons that have been used for it's proposed inclusion. What I mean is that 
ANY TLD should be allowed to be created including dot XXX, but to suggest it 
will reduce or increase the amount of porn on the web or that porn will be 
forced to move there or any other of these notions is totally ridiculous.

It should be allowed. But those involved should stop postering and lying 
about the real reasons. The real reasons are listed below.

1. MONEY from specilators
2. MONEY from people blackmailed into registering a domain name to protect 
their brands
3. MONEY for ICANN to spend
4. MONEY for another registry
5. Have I mentioned MONEY?

Also this is not the company that already has a dot xxx in another root is 
it? Dot Biz ring a bell here?

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" 
To: "General Assembly of the DNSO" ; 

Cc: "icann board address" ; "icann staff" 

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:50 AM
Subject: [ga] Why the .XXX Domain is a Bad Idea That Won't Die


> All,
> My answer to the ? below is that .XXX is more of a scam for
> the interest of political intrigue indirectly from ICANN some time
> age before it became a item of new TLD's and was than regurgitated
> as a proposed TLD to address the than pornography concern on
> the internet. Also as our members intuitively recognized that .XXX
> is a trap for those in the adult entertainment on the net.
>
> From Slashdot:
>
> 1. http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1997492,00.html
> 2.
> http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/18/0315255&tid=95
> 3. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/16/1538243&tid=153
> 4.
> http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/11/1236213&tid=95
> 5. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/07/2316225&tid=95
>
>
> Reader tqft tipped us to an opinion piece on the UK site The Guardian,
> which lays out the reasons why article writer Seth Finkelstein feels
> the .XXX domain is a terrible idea. You may recall that last year
> (being an election year and all), the concept of a triple-X ghetto was
> revived, considered, and then quashed all in the space of a few
> months. We also recently discussed the fact that the idea just won't
> die, as the company ICM Registry pushes ICANN to allow them to pass out
> the names by Summer. Finkelstein primarily argues that the new domain is
>
> a bad idea from a business point of view. Ignoring for a moment the
> issue
> that much of this content is already labeled, he sees this as primarily
> a
> means for ICM Registry to gain a monopoly on what is sure to be a
> hot-selling product. Speculators, pornographers, and above-board
> companies will all jump on the namespace in an effort to ensure that
> their domain is represented ... or not, as the case may be. Where do you
>
> fall on this issue? Would a .XXX domain be helpful for parents, or just
> a
> political salve/moneymaking scam?
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obediance of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> Abraham Lincoln
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "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.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
> E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Registered Email addr with the USPS
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827
>
>
> 



 
---------------------------------
 Get your own web address.
 Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.