Originally Posted by Hymes

Damn, nice find. I wrote that as a journalist probably five years ago, looking at both sides of the issue, when I still still unclear about the ramifications and what it would all mean. It was theoretical, and had nothing at all to do with this .XXX application. I Always do that when working things through, much the same as I did with 2257, which I might have supported if it were reasonably written and only used if there was a good faith belief that a minor had been used in a production. But that's not how they're written, so I can't support them, and neither do I support .xxx. I had no idea someone had pulled that one paragraph into a white paper to use for that purpose, so shame on them for doing that and shame on me for making an incorrect idea sound so compelling. When I read it now, it's bullshit, but I can't reverse the clock, and my evaluation of these issues has improved in that I think about them far longer before I comment.

Also, Paul Fishbein has stated that he turned the .xxx offer down, so that right there should clarity the AVN position.

The FSC position is the same, and always has been, that it does not now, never has, and never will support a .xxx tld.