HOLLYWOOD, FL – In what played out as one of the most contentious panel discussions ever observed at an online adult industry trade event, last weekend’s discussion of the new .XXX top level domain extension was a polarized affair from the very start. With few supporters in the smaller than anticipated crowd, Stuart Lawley and Jason Hendeles of ICM Registry, Inc. attempted to address industry concerns and establish trust with what appeared to be a less than receptive audience.Hendeles began by reading from a prepared statement, in which he stated that the goal of ICM and the International Foundation for Online Responsibility (IFFOR) was to “address the needs of the online adult industry,” and that the new TLD was created to “support the interests” of the industry. Hendeles added that no one from ICM or IFFOR has ever claimed that .xxx would be a “magic bullet” to prevent children from being exposed to pornography, and stated unequivocally that “ICM has never at any point in time offered any adult company equity in .XXX for their support,” claims that were questioned vigorously by the others on the panel and members of the audience throughout the remainder of the discussion.

As so many questions remain about .XXX – including several key questions that ICM appears to be unwilling or unable to answer, currently – the recurring theme of the day for ICM became, in effect, “Trust Us.” Naturally, the members of the panel opposed to the .XXX TLD immediately and aggressively challenged the wisdom of investing the trust ICM seeks from the industry.

For example, ICM has made public statements that their new TLD enjoys the support of “numerous free speech organizations”; but when asked to identify even one such organization, neither Lawley nor Hendeles were willing to provide specifics, saying only that they would provide such information in due time.

YNOT editor-in-chief Connor Young, a vocal opponent of the new TLD, immediately assailed the credibility of the ICM representatives, asking specifically about public statements made by Jonathon Silverstein (AKA “J$tyles”) to the effect that he had in fact received payment from ICM in exchange for public support for the TLD. Hendeles and Lawley appeared to back away from the vehement denial contained in their opening statement, conceding that they had retained Silverstein for “consulting,” an explanation met with considerable skepticism and even unrestrained laughter by some in attendance.

Young also questioned the very necessity for the self-regulation that will accompany the new TLD, asserting that the same goals can be met using currently available systems and technologies, like the self-rating system offered by the Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA).

Attorney Greg Piccionelli, who along with Monte Cahn of Moniker.com comprised the “neutral” portion of the panel, identified both pros and cons associated with the .XXX TLD, suggesting that “the adult industry is at a crossroads,” and that the industry as a whole “has a bad rep, and needs to improve its image.”

“On the pro side,” Piccionelli said, “.XXX allows the industry to represent itself as more professional, responsible and concerned.”

Lawley agreed with Piccionelli, saying that the primary reason for the development of the TLD was to assist in improving the industry’s image. “It’s not about the kids, it’s about the industry,” Lawley said.

Other members of the panel, however, noted that earlier statements by ICM regarding .XXX had emphasized the child-protection angle nearly exclusively, and questioned ICM’s commitment to the industry.

“They have been selling this thing to parents in this country, and to family groups, and to Congress as a measure to protect children,” observed Tom Hymes, Communications Director for the Free Speech Coalition (FSC). “When these people figure out that .XXX hasn’t helped to protect children, then you are going to have a very unhappy Congress, and you don’t want an unhappy Congress.”

Hymes mentioned at the start of the session that he was speaking largely on behalf of his own views, but would sometimes make statements on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition.

Among the many concerns voiced by members of the audience and the panel alike was the relatively small presence that the adult industry will have on the IFFOR board, which will serve to establish standards and practices for the new .XXX TLD. Although the majority of the IFFOR board will be from outside the adult industry, Hendeles assured that this will not lead to the board acting in contradiction to the best interests of the adult industry.

Hymes and Young both noted that, with the board and best practices of IFFOR as yet undefined, on these points ICM was again saying, essentially, “Trust us.”

“They are saying ‘trust us’ and ‘we’ll give you a voice to fight for you’,” Hymes said, “but I submit to you that in the Free Speech Coalition, there is already an organization fighting for you – an organization for which you get to select the entire board.” Hymes added that the FSC’s decision not to back the .XXX TLD should “make you suspicious” of the TLD in and of itself.

Following over an hour of discussion in the conference hall, the discussion moved to a dining area, where the panel continued to field questions from the audience. Among the most penetrating questions came from Spike Goldberg of Homegrown Video, well known and equally well respected in the industry for his tireless contributions in the Acacia patent case.

“You’re asking us to trust you,” Goldberg said, “but what have you done for the industry so far, other than propose this new extension that you stand to make a lot of money on?”

In response, Lawley essentially just reiterated earlier assertions that he had “traveled the world” speaking to “many leaders in the adult industry,” and “reached out for their input.” When Goldberg replied by asking for specific information on whom they had talked to, Lawley once again declined to provide specific names, prompting Goldberg to say, “See, that right there is why we don’t trust you.” It was an exchange that typified the tone of the entire discussion, and may well serve as a preview of the days to come.

Although many aspects of .XXX are still undefined (most significantly what the “best practices” will evolve to be), there seems little question that .XXX is coming. “I’m not aware of one extension that has been approved by ICANN and not released and developed,” Cahn said.

The question, then, is what does the industry do, and how does it respond to the challenges presented by .XXX?

Picionelli and Cahn both suggested that individuals and companies that did not want to participate in .XXX could protect their brands and intellectual property by establishing trademarks on their .com names, or by simply registering the .XXX domains and not using them. Members of the audience however, questioned the practicality of doing this, given the relatively high price of the .XXX names, and the lengthy process of establishing trademarks.

Whatever the future of .XXX, it appears certain that the new TLD will encounter a bumpy ride into existence. It remains to be seen how restrictive the “self-regulation” proscribed by the IFFOR board will be, or to what extent IFFOR will, in fact, serve to promote the best interests of the adult industry. What is clear, though, is that there’s precious little middle ground in what promises to be a long debate, with no abundance of the trust ICM seeks.