To Many Persons Providing Comment on the ICM Registry Proposal for Establishment of a .XXX Sponsored Top Level Domain:Let’s get something straight about the .xxx sTLD as proposed by ICM Registry, currently under consideration by ICANN:
As proposed, use of the new .xxx sTLD would be voluntary and not mandatory for adult websites.
I state this emphatically because so much of what I see reported on the subject of .xxx in the media, as well as much of the discussion of the proposal in comments sent to ICANN, appears to focus on the question of whether establishing a porn-only “zone” for online adult content is a good idea.
Whether or not you think that the establishment such an online “red light district” is a good idea, approval of ICM’s proposal by ICANN would not establish such a thing.
I can certainly understand why some of those discussing .xxx are confused; much of the concern voiced by opponents of the new sTLD centers on the possibility that .xxx could be made mandatory.
ICM Registry, the company behind the current proposal to establish .xxx, has stated publicly, repeatedly, that they would fight any attempt to mandate use of the TLD by adult sites, or sites that offer “material harmful to minors,” or any other language that might be utilized to force use of the TLD.
Some have questioned the sincerity and/or international scope of ICM’s pledge to fight attempts to make .xxx mandatory, and they have their reasons for being skeptical. Would ICM fight all attempts to make use of the domain mandatory for adult sites, or just laws passed by the U.S. Congress? Given the technical and practical challenges of internationally enforcing such a law, passed by any individual country, is that question even relevant?
Regardless of the above points, approval by ICANN of the .xxx proposal would not, and could not, by itself change the laws of the United States or any other country.
I happen to be among those who are against the approval of .xxx, for reasons that I need not go into detail about here.
Having said that, there are many real issues to be considered with respect to whether ICANN should approve the .xxx TLD as it has been proposed, and there are arguably valid points to be made by either side of the debate.
What is not valid, in my opinion, is to express support or opposition to .xxx that is rooted in fundamental errors of fact concerning the nature and effect of the current proposal.
Framing the discussion of establishment of .xxx as a question of whether a legally-mandated “red light district” should be established for online adult content obscures the real nature of the .xxx proposal, and encourages the formation of opinions based on outright misconceptions.
In short, if you are in favor of establishing an “adults-only zone” on the Web that has the force of law behind it, you should be aware that supporting .xxx as proposed by ICM is not in the best interests of your cause.
Boiled down to its core, the ICM proposal ostensibly involves voluntary use of a specific TLD by webmasters that wish to identify themselves in conspicuous fashion as “responsible” vendors of sexually explicit materials.
Under the still developing rules for the proposed .xxx TLD, as explained by ICM representatives at a recent adult industry trade conference, webmasters with sites on the .xxx sTLD could still maintain, and even link to, their websites located on other TLDs like .com, .net, .nl, etc., whether or not such sites conform to the rules of the .xxx sTLD.
Thus, far from a mandatory adults-only zone, .xxx would be an area where those that purport to be more “responsible” sell their wares in an easy to identify place, while still maintaining their other (and, presumably in some cases, less “responsible”) websites.
Conversely, if you are against .xxx as proposed by ICM only because you believe its approval will also establish a mandatory “red light district” for porn sites I think you should be aware of a few things:
(1) That’s not true.
(2) While establishment of .xxx might be reasonably perceived as a “slippery slope” down which we would slide into a “free speech ghetto,” simply establishing the TLD would be far from sufficient to force the adult industry to use a specific domain
(3) We’re already on that “slippery slope” whether we like it or not. The question is not whether online adult content can be regulated, the question is to what extent, by whom, and to whom would the standards of which regulatory body apply.
I don’t note these things in order to persuade you, one way or the other, as to whether .xxx, as proposed by ICM or otherwise, is a good idea; to the best of knowledge, I’m just stating facts here.
In forming your own opinion, I hope you find these facts useful.
