My letter to ICANN in opposition to .xxx
I have sent this to ICANN, but thought I would post here in case anyone who shares our feelings would like to borrow some of our arguments and ideas. The only thing I would ask is that you not lift it directly and send it; ICANN will value the letters much more if they are individually crafted.
-----------------------------------------------[
Gentleones,
We have previously commented on the .xxx proposal, the last time it was up for review. My previous opinions remain unchanged, however, we are now to understand that ICM is deceptively misrepresenting the views of the adult online community.
Make no mistake, an overwhelming majority of adult website owners and operators are opposed to .xxx. I would go so far as to say that, if they are properly informed about it, nearly 100% would be opposed.
This proposal is ill thought out, and is being deceptively and duplicitously marketed to opposing camps. The adult industry is being told that the .xxx domain is completely voluntary and adult content will never be restricted to .xxx domains. Yet, in the same breath, ICM is those opposed to pornography that the .xxx domain will help to ensure that adult content is limited to this domain. Clearly those two thoughts are diametrically opposed.
ICM's goal cannot be anything other than to monopolize control of adult content on the Internet, which would certainly be in their best financial interests. Yet, since ICANN is charged with regulating the Net with the best interests of all in mind, approval of .xxx cannot possibly be viewed as supportive of that mandate. For one thing, ICANN's .tld policy requires that specialty domains be created only if there is strong support for .xxx. There is no such support from the adult industry.
ICM deceptively rolled out a "preregistration" page in which adult webmasters could "pre reserve" .xxx adult domains, "in the event the .xxx domain was approved." Any savvy webmaster or adult company would therefore place a reservation on names they already use, simply as insurance in case the domain was, in fact approved.
This should IN NO WAY be construed as support for the .xxx domain; if Coca Cola or General Motors or Amazon were suddenly told that a new tld was being considered, and that, if approved, they might be forced to change from their well-branded .com tld to another tld, you can be assured that those companies would preemptively reserve those domains simply as a business precaution. But if you asked those companies if they wished to switch, it would be clear that they wished to retain their current, branded websites and TLDs.
Another paradox: It would likely be a violation of free speech in the US and elsewhere to force adult content into the .xxx domain, and ICM argues out of one side of its mouth that it will always be voluntary. Yet forcing adult content to use .xxx is the only possible valid reason for approving the domain; absent the ability to block adult content using the .xxx tld as the blocking criteria, there would be no valid reason to create it, as there is plenty of namespace for adult content within the current .tld naming structures, and it would simply be a new and unnecessary TLD.
This also does not address the exceedingly complex issue of what, exactly, constitutes adult content, and would therefore fall under .xxx if use of the .xxx did become mandatory. Would a blog making a passing reference to adult content and posting a single sexually explicit image be subject? If not, how many images would subject a blog to .xxx? Would language alone make a site required to post under .xxx? What about mixed-content sites, such as video rental or VOD sites containing commercial, nonadult as well as adult content? What about artwork that could fit the definition of sexually explicit?
These issues are already thorny in the bricks-and-mortar world, and pose far more questions (along with a myriad of mixed answers, due to differing laws and customs in different countries) in the online world.
In short, approving the .xxx domain would be a disaster. It presents serious free speech challenges, it is not wanted by the industry it is supposedly being created for, it does not solve the problem of limiting access to pornography, and it serves no purpose whatsoever except to enrich the pockets of the owners of ICM registry.
I sincerely hope that ICANN will continue to make the correct decision and permanently and irrevocably close the door on this unwanted, unneeded, and disastrously bad proposal.
Chip White
VP
Media Resource Communications, Inc
