My friend Andrew just wrote a post on DomainNameWire.com on the outcry from religious groups and their members against the .XXX extension.
The comment period on the .XXX extension is as Andrew noted getting a lot of comments, many from religious groups and their members against the .XXX extension but the other group also voicing opposition, once again to .XXX, is the adult industry.
Mike South, legendary porn producer, writes on his blog at MikeSouth.com:
“”ICANN is once again considering the .XXX top level domain and is seeking public comments
I urge you all to go to
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201005-en.htm#icm-options-report
and let them know that as an industry we do NOT support this get rich quick scheme by ICM Registry
It is the only thing that the FSC (Free Speech Collation) and the industry in general and the religious right will ever agree on it seems, nobody wants this.
But the most important commentary is that from the industry. according to ICANN rules the industry as a whole would have to support the idea and ICM Registry has tried to convince them that we do.””
Mike South comment to ICANN is also telling of the adult industry feeling about the extension:
“”As I look through the comments here its obvious that some are a result of some religious organization compelling people to comment Some are ICM Registry plants saying abide by the panel’s decision blah blah blah And some are people in the adult industry (such as myself) with the exception of the people at ICM Registry NOBODY wants this.
“For once the religious right AND the pornographers agree .xxx is a horrible idea, no matter how much money ICM Registry has thrown at the idea.
I urge ICANN to lay this thing to rest once and for all vote NO on .xxx The only people who will not cheer you for it is ICMR. Its nothing but a money grab.
Mike South””
Here is another comment posted by someone in the adult industry that is against the .XXX extension.
Here is the funny thing about the new gTLD’s.
The ICANN guidebook is full of talk about giving the new extensions to those organizations that can show community support.
Here’s an extension that doesn’t have the support of the community its suppose to represent namely the adult community.
Matter of fact it doesn’t seem to have the support of any community.
So at the end of the day why green light a new extension that no one wants?
as I’ve already said several times, the .xxx domains are completely useless for porn sites… what counts for this kind of sites is the “content” and not the name or the TLD 🙂
“the outcry from religious groups and their members against the .XXX extension”
did these “religious groups” know that millions porn sites already are on the web with other TLDs?
.
LCD
Sure they do.
That is what they are afraid of the expansion of porn on the net.
Its not like milf.com is going to just forward to milf.xxx.
There will be a milf.com and also milf.xxx, same for millions of adult sites.
Remember ICM is not giving the .com holder first crack at the matching .xxx so there will be a multiplication of sites, not a duplication.
MHB
in my opinion, if the .xxx TLD will be available, only a few of the existing porn sites will buy them
however, if many porn sites will buy to .xxx domains, the groups against porn must be HAPPY since a TLD fully devoted to porn is very easy to block at providers level or by parental control software
“scan” the content of .com and other TLDs in search of porn sites or have an updated directory of all bad sites is a much more complex job
.
.porn or the most generic .sex
Theoretically, there would be some value to society in moving all porn content to .xxx sites. I assume this would only work though if other tld’s were then restricted from showing porn. And that would never happen without a new law and some type of huge financial penalty.
I remember when the internet first caught on, a person (children too unfortunately) could wind up on a porn site just by searching for “toys”.
Now, social networking sites are probably more risky for exposing kids to things they shouldn’t read or see. It’s am important topic, but such a complex problem to solve because freedom of speech is so all encompassing.
“moving all porn content to .xxx sites”
to be banned worldwide within a few months
.
the .xxx domains are completely useless for porn sites…….
“So at the end of the day why green light a new extension that no one wants?”
Excellent point.
However…
If .xxx were a gTLD under the current DAG, it would most likely sail through the approval process, whether people wanted it or not.
The only reason these objections carry any weight is because ICM applied for .xxx as a “sponsored” TLD, which brings with it a tonne of unnecessary policy baggage.
In a sane world, ICM and ICANN would just sit down and figure out a way to make this a gTLD. But that ain’t going to happen, not in a world run by lawyers.
Kevin
Not sure about that.
All of the guidebooks have escape language in them for just an extension
Objections on Moral grounds etc is still in
MHB:
The moral objection criteria are quite specific. The only wiggle-room seems to be this:
“A determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to equally generally accepted identified legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under general principles of international law.”
IANAL, but I’m fairly certain it would be a stretch to apply that to porn.
Kevin
I haven’t gone through the guidebook in quite a while but I think there are rights to object in place that can be filed by groups as well.
Moreover there are issues and objections to this particular application that may not exist in applications during the gTLD process, including the $10 fee ICM wants to collect to fund a whole other operation, kind of like a forced tax, which I do not believe is within the framework of ICANN to approve and which many like the ICA objected to long ago
“So at the end of the day why green light a new extension that no one wants?”
That’s not really the question being asked by ICANN here.
The ICANN board “green lighted” the application several years ago, and then failed to follow through. The Independent Review Panel found that ICANN violated its own by-laws and the application rules by doing that.
Whether one or another voice does or does not speak for “the adult community” is not really the issue for which ICANN is soliciting comments. Bringing up substantive objections here is like trying to introduce new evidence during an appeal. The question here is procedural, not substantive.
If nobody wants it, nobody uses it, and it fails. At least when I was in the loop years ago, there were some publishers which were enthusiastically supportive, and some who were vociferously opposed.
One point of correction to a comment above, though, since the IP stuff was my focus in the application – owners of .com names ARE given a preference in registration and in requesting non-resolving names if they do not want to register a .xxx name. The idea was that if you want to use it, fine, but if you don’t, then there should be a cheap and painless route other than defensive registration (and I believe we had worked out an arrangement with the back-end where non-resolving names were free) ICM had received enough expressions of interest, from various nobodies I guess, that “defensive registration” was not a revenue stream.
(obdisclaimer: I worked on intellectual property policy aspects of the original application several years ago, but have no continuing interest in the TLD and have not been involved in the IRP review or any subsequent actions by ICM)
John
“”That’s not really the question being asked by ICANN here.”
“”The ICANN board “green lighted” the application several years ago, and then failed to follow through. The Independent Review Panel found that ICANN violated its own by-laws and the application rules by doing that.”””
What is the question being asked by ICANN then?
Why did they open up a comment period if there is nothing left to be said?