CYBERSPACE – ICANN’s consideration of a revised proposed contract with ICM Registry to operate the .xxx sTLD brought with it another round of public comment – and another round of bitter opposition by many within the adult industry.While use of nicknames and “unsigned” letters makes it difficult to identify in verifiable fashion many of those who have submitted comments, it is fair to say that the majority of comments express opposition to the establishment of the new sTLD.

It is also fair to say that the vast majority of comments submitted thus far do not address in any way the revised contract itself, which is arguably the actual purpose for, and intended topic of, the ICANN forum opened on January 5th.

In an email to YNOT yesterday, ICM President Stuart Lawley said that the perceived lack of support from adult webmasters is essentially irrelevant, because ICM’s contract with ICANN provides a narrow definition of “sponsoring community” that does not connote inclusion of the adult webmaster community or adult industry at large.

“We never defined the community to be the entire adult entertainment industry, only those who wish to be clearly identified as such,” Lawley wrote to YNOT Monday. “In essence, only those who wish to register in .xxx and thereby identify themselves are members of our Community. All of those who oppose .xxx within the Adult industry are simply NOT members of the sponsoring community, as defined.”

Brandon Shalton, well-known for his “Fight This Patent” campaign aimed at Acacia, and another grassroots effort in opposition of the .xxx sTLD, told YNOT that Lawley and ICM were “morphing the definition” of ‘sponsoring community’ as ICANN has previously applied the term with relation to sponsored TLDs, and is substantially “changing the scope” of that definition.

“The absurdity of the argument is obvious,” Shalton told YNOT Tuesday. “The ‘sponsoring community’ is now simply anyone that wants .xxx, and anyone who doesn’t is not a part of the ‘sponsoring community.’”

“What was the definition of ‘sponsoring community’ back when the proposal was first made?” added Shalton, asserting that currently there are no actual members of IFFOR (the International Foundation For Online Responsibility) the organization identified in the contract as the sTLD’s “sponsor.”

Regardless of whether the forum for public comment ICANN opened on January 5th is intended as a catch-all depot for comment on .XXX or merely intended as a forum to comment on the current iteration of the contract, the comments posted serve as an interesting, if non-scientific, sample of the adult industry’s reaction to the proposed TLD.

Excerpts from the comments of some known/verifiable members of the adult industry who have submitted comments published to the ICANN forum follow. Specific comments excerpted below are listed along with the URL for the full comment posted by the author in question.

The full list of comments, in their published entirety is available on the ICANN website at the following URL: http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm-agreement/

“While there are many reasons for my disapproval the main reason is simply the lack of effect this will have on child pornography and keeping kids away from porn. The bottom line is legitimate adult webmasters such as my self do not engage in these practices and illegitimate ones will not follow the rules .xxx brings. So what is the point(?)”

– Todd Spaits, CEO Stripe Media Inc. (YanksCash.com)
Full post: http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm-agreement/msg00047.html

“After careful study and looking at the reasons behind something such as .xxx its really for the very wrong reasons, 1. the selling point of this idea to create a domain to somehow protect children is not only not true but angers me that this group would sink that low to sell there business plan this way. 2. Serves no purpose in the online adult world, plus no one single group or person wants this to pass or be part of our business.”

– Mike Hawk, co-founder Smashbucks.com
Full post: http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm-agreement/msg00038.html

(The following was posted under the subject “The REAL answer to protecting children.”)
A .KIDS TLC (sic)

“plain and simple its way easier, makes way more sense and creates a cottage industry of suitable internet content for various age groups. Your kids dont get porn from adult sites…they get it off limewire, bearshare etc. a .kids TLC will let you filter out everything BUT .KIDS and thats the right way to do it.”

– Mike South, MikeSouth.com
Full post: http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm-agreement/msg00036.html

“i’m an adult webmaster and i believe .xxx is violation of my rights as a business person and as normal citizen with common sense. there is no one in my industry that feels this is a good thing, only those who might profit from this violation of our rights are interested in making it happen. .xxx would not solve any problems with minors accessing adult content because parents would still have to use software that is already availble to them NOW to prevent access to inappropriate content. please kill this and stop wasting valuable time and public resources on something that is so obviously wrong and unjust.”

– R. Weaver (AKA Q’on), PerSignup.com
Full post: http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm-agreement/msg00024.html

“I own thousands of adult domains and strongly feel that .xxx is NOT in any way wanted/needed by webmasters, and that all the comments at www.fightthedotxxx.com apply – please accept ALL those comments, as IMO they are the same opinions felt by many thousands of webmasters/owners/etc.

Do NOT let ICM fool you!!”

– Dave Cummings, www.davecummings.com
Full post: http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm-agreement/msg00017.html

“Any letters of support that ICM Registry previously provided to ICANN are now moot, because the Agreement upon which those letters were provided has since been amended so many times as to make them meaningless. It’s a different deal, with new contractual obligations!

In good conscience, ICANN should proactively contact all previous supporters to see if they still support it. Short of that, they are acting in bad faith and proceeding with an agenda that is not taking into account the needs, wishes or best interests of the target industry.”

– Tom Hymes, Publisher, Xbiz.com