Dot-XXX Seminar Raises Ire of Opposing Webmasters - GoFuckYourself.com

tony286 · 02-07-2007, 10:58 PM

Dot-XXX Seminar Raises Ire of Opposing Webmasters
AVN Online.com

By: Ken Knox

Print function sponsored by:

HOLLYWOOD, Calif. -

Although XBiz Editor in Chief Tom Hymes instructed audience members to keep their questions "cordial and non-threatening," queries made to representatives and supporters of the proposed dot-xxx domain were anything but during the question-and-answer period at the Proposed .XXX TLD: A Dialogue with ICM Registry seminar.

With a panel consisting of ICM Registry?s Stuart Lawley, ICRA representative Stephen Balkam, ICM Registry attorney Robert Corn-Revere, and adult industry attorney Greg Piccionelli, the seminar became something of a contentious battleground for webmasters and industry players eager to make their opinions known.

The seminar got off to a quiet start, with Lawley taking on the myths and misunderstandings surrounding the much-opposed dot-xxx domain field. He defended the $60 registration fee ("It?s a matter of straight business and mathematics," he noted) by pointing out that other top-level domains regularly charge higher fees, and shot down the theory that any adult industry players stood to gain any profits from the TLD. "The company is 100 percent owned by the management team," Lawley claimed. "There are no outside investments and no secret deals."

Lawley also addressed the perception that registration with dot-xxx would become mandatory (it won?t, he promised); assured webmasters that priority would be given to existing domain holders ("There are mechanisms in place to challenge the allocation of any name," he claimed); promised that the industry would have a say in the sponsoring of the organization due to two out of seven seats on the board of directors being occupied by adult industry reps; and boasted of documented and broad support from the industry, claiming that dot-xxx has received "unsolicited expressions of support from over 1,500 webmasters in 71 countries."

Furthermore, Lawley?who admitted to not being involved in the adult industry in any way?said he was surprised that the industry as so opposed to dot-xxx. "It enhances the industry for all," he theorized, predicting that "[consumers] will spend more money more confidently" and that registering with the TLD would "clearly align [adult companies] with responsible and ethical behavior."

Meanwhile, Balkam posited that dot-xxx will make it easier to keep porn out of households where adult content is not wanted by encouraging a "semantic Web" that would "make meta-data matter?We see it as an opportunity to hugely increase the amount of sites that are labeled [as being adult oriented], which will improve filtering systems," he offered, adding that the domain field would "reduce the fear and reduce the government from [interceding]."

These statements raised the ire of Piccionelli, who launched into a direct attack on dot-xxx, pointing out that "a lot of damage to free speech rights?including the 2257 regulations?has been under the guise of ?protecting children.?

"At the heart is a political issue of keeping adult content away from children, but equally at heart are the freedom and rights of adults not to be sequestered into unfavorable speech [zones]," he continued. "You can take manure and put it in a gold frame, but all you?re left with is manure in a gold frame."

Piccionelli cited the Cyber Safety for Kids Act as proof that the government most likely would attempt to make dot-xxx mandatory for all adult webmasters and producers, and likened ICM?s pledges to keep registration voluntary to pledges made by men who say, "I promise I won?t come in your mouth."

"Adult content is unpopular speech," he went on to say, likening dot-xxx to the Motion Picture Association of America, which adversely affects the success of movies by bestowing upon them NC-17 or X ratings. He also proposed that "people not in the dot-xxx will be punished or singled out."

While the panel?s moderator, Cydata Service?s Brandon Shalton, pointed out ambiguities in dot-xxx?s terms of service, others instead focused on their beliefs that such a TLD is unnecessary.

"I just don?t think can keep kids out of porn," Piccionelli proclaimed. "This is a bunch of people with their heads in the ground trying to pass the buck to someone else."

Audience members lined up to ask questions, keeping the seminar running well beyond its projected 90-minute timeslot. Concerns of domain allocation seemed especially prevalent, with some concerned that they still may lose out on domains they already hold.

Perhaps the most powerful statement made during the Q&A period came from Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Diane Duke, who said she felt that?despite ICM?s claims that dot-xxx would be a tool for the adult industry?the TLD would become "a tool for the government."

"You?re asking us to sign on to something where the road is very hazy," she added. "As a businessman looking out for his own business interests, how can we be sure that you?re going to look out for the best interests of the adult industry?"

Sadly, that question was not answered during the seminar, and probably will not be resolved for some time.

MandyBlake · 02-07-2007, 11:52 PM

good post tony

spider_x · 02-08-2007, 12:02 AM

What better way to put porn into the hands of minors than labelling it clearly as DOT XXX, period.

stickyfingerz · 02-08-2007, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spider_x

What better way to put porn into the hands of minors than labelling it clearly as DOT XXX, period.

Ya somehow I had a stack of nudey mags from when I was 12 to 18 with no problem lol, and I didnt get them from my father or brother etc.

TampaToker · 02-08-2007, 12:08 AM

Looking for something fresh under 3 months old or has unique conent

fuhkinglou · 02-08-2007, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Ya somehow I had a stack of nudey mags from when I was 12 to 18 with no problem lol, and I didnt get them from my father or brother etc.

Exactly. I wanted porn when I was 11 and was able to get my hands on it. I remember kids having it in 5th grade. Sigh... I thought the republicans were about less big government.

chupacabra · 02-08-2007, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TampaToker

Looking for something fresh under 3 months old or has unique conent

uh, what? did you even read the thread? so...

...did anyone bring up the .kids side of the argument, which makes a lot more sense when it comes to child-safe internet climes..?

SleazyDream · 02-08-2007, 12:35 AM

1500 webmaster said they want it -what failed to say is that of them they send a total of 4 sales combined to the programs within the industry

baddog · 02-08-2007, 12:40 AM

I have to say I was pretty disappointed at the turn out. The 2257 seminar was standing room only, and the .xxx seminar allowed us to stretch out and do jumping jacks without bothering anyone else.

tony286 · 02-08-2007, 02:32 PM

bump for a better article

Mr. Jim · 02-08-2007, 02:44 PM

For once an objective fact based post without spreading lies and slandering people.

I was there Tony... I was in Lawley's face... where were you???

Peaches · 02-08-2007, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I have to say I was pretty disappointed at the turn out. The 2257 seminar was standing room only, and the .xxx seminar allowed us to stretch out and do jumping jacks without bothering anyone else.

Very interesting info.....

Quentin · 02-08-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chupacabra

uh, what? did you even read the thread? so...

...did anyone bring up the .kids side of the argument, which makes a lot more sense when it comes to child-safe internet climes..?

Yes, actually, Lawley himself brought up .kids. He pointed at the lack of interest in registering such domains, as represented by a previous aborted attempt to establish a .kids type TLD, and declared the idea a "non-starter."

- Q.

tony286 · 02-08-2007, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Jim

For once an objective fact based post without spreading lies and slandering people.

I was there Tony... I was in Lawley's face... where were you???

Please tell me where I lied, your the one slandering .
Im still waiting to see if your a man and apologize :
http://www.gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/704350-xxx-happened-xbiz-people.html

chupacabra · 02-08-2007, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quentin

Yes, actually, Lawley himself brought up .kids. He pointed at the lack of interest in registering such domains, as represented by a previous aborted attempt to establish a .kids type TLD, and declared the idea a "non-starter."

- Q.

wow, so the kids-esque website operations don't want to be ghetto-ized either, go figure. maybe the parents are going to have to intervene..

baddog · 02-09-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chupacabra

uh, what? did you even read the thread? so...

...did anyone bring up the .kids side of the argument, which makes a lot more sense when it comes to child-safe internet climes..?

I believe he said there were a grand total of 25 .kids domains purchased.

02-07-2007, 10:58 PM	#1
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Dot-XXX Seminar Raises Ire of Opposing Webmasters Dot-XXX Seminar Raises Ire of Opposing Webmasters AVN Online.com By: Ken Knox Print function sponsored by: HOLLYWOOD, Calif. - Although XBiz Editor in Chief Tom Hymes instructed audience members to keep their questions "cordial and non-threatening," queries made to representatives and supporters of the proposed dot-xxx domain were anything but during the question-and-answer period at the Proposed .XXX TLD: A Dialogue with ICM Registry seminar. With a panel consisting of ICM Registry?s Stuart Lawley, ICRA representative Stephen Balkam, ICM Registry attorney Robert Corn-Revere, and adult industry attorney Greg Piccionelli, the seminar became something of a contentious battleground for webmasters and industry players eager to make their opinions known. The seminar got off to a quiet start, with Lawley taking on the myths and misunderstandings surrounding the much-opposed dot-xxx domain field. He defended the $60 registration fee ("It?s a matter of straight business and mathematics," he noted) by pointing out that other top-level domains regularly charge higher fees, and shot down the theory that any adult industry players stood to gain any profits from the TLD. "The company is 100 percent owned by the management team," Lawley claimed. "There are no outside investments and no secret deals." Lawley also addressed the perception that registration with dot-xxx would become mandatory (it won?t, he promised); assured webmasters that priority would be given to existing domain holders ("There are mechanisms in place to challenge the allocation of any name," he claimed); promised that the industry would have a say in the sponsoring of the organization due to two out of seven seats on the board of directors being occupied by adult industry reps; and boasted of documented and broad support from the industry, claiming that dot-xxx has received "unsolicited expressions of support from over 1,500 webmasters in 71 countries." Furthermore, Lawley?who admitted to not being involved in the adult industry in any way?said he was surprised that the industry as so opposed to dot-xxx. "It enhances the industry for all," he theorized, predicting that "[consumers] will spend more money more confidently" and that registering with the TLD would "clearly align [adult companies] with responsible and ethical behavior." Meanwhile, Balkam posited that dot-xxx will make it easier to keep porn out of households where adult content is not wanted by encouraging a "semantic Web" that would "make meta-data matter?We see it as an opportunity to hugely increase the amount of sites that are labeled [as being adult oriented], which will improve filtering systems," he offered, adding that the domain field would "reduce the fear and reduce the government from [interceding]." These statements raised the ire of Piccionelli, who launched into a direct attack on dot-xxx, pointing out that "a lot of damage to free speech rights?including the 2257 regulations?has been under the guise of ?protecting children.? "At the heart is a political issue of keeping adult content away from children, but equally at heart are the freedom and rights of adults not to be sequestered into unfavorable speech [zones]," he continued. "You can take manure and put it in a gold frame, but all you?re left with is manure in a gold frame." Piccionelli cited the Cyber Safety for Kids Act as proof that the government most likely would attempt to make dot-xxx mandatory for all adult webmasters and producers, and likened ICM?s pledges to keep registration voluntary to pledges made by men who say, "I promise I won?t come in your mouth." "Adult content is unpopular speech," he went on to say, likening dot-xxx to the Motion Picture Association of America, which adversely affects the success of movies by bestowing upon them NC-17 or X ratings. He also proposed that "people not in the dot-xxx will be punished or singled out." While the panel?s moderator, Cydata Service?s Brandon Shalton, pointed out ambiguities in dot-xxx?s terms of service, others instead focused on their beliefs that such a TLD is unnecessary. "I just don?t think can keep kids out of porn," Piccionelli proclaimed. "This is a bunch of people with their heads in the ground trying to pass the buck to someone else." Audience members lined up to ask questions, keeping the seminar running well beyond its projected 90-minute timeslot. Concerns of domain allocation seemed especially prevalent, with some concerned that they still may lose out on domains they already hold. Perhaps the most powerful statement made during the Q&A period came from Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Diane Duke, who said she felt that?despite ICM?s claims that dot-xxx would be a tool for the adult industry?the TLD would become "a tool for the government." "You?re asking us to sign on to something where the road is very hazy," she added. "As a businessman looking out for his own business interests, how can we be sure that you?re going to look out for the best interests of the adult industry?" Sadly, that question was not answered during the seminar, and probably will not be resolved for some time.

02-07-2007, 11:52 PM	#2
MandyBlake The one and only! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 17,761	good post tony __________________ Mandy's Playhouse Her First Fat Girl If you're interested in promoting my sites, ICQ me! 178411921

02-08-2007, 12:02 AM	#3
spider_x Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 481	What better way to put porn into the hands of minors than labelling it clearly as DOT XXX, period. __________________ Want to get off the keyboard and get laid? Visit this link now for genuinely seductive mind-blowing sex!

02-08-2007, 12:08 AM	#5
TampaToker Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Location: Tampa Posts: 5,827	Spam me with new programs Looking for something fresh under 3 months old or has unique conent

02-08-2007, 12:35 AM	#8
SleazyDream I'm here for SPORT Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phone # (401) 285-0696 Posts: 41,470	1500 webmaster said they want it -what failed to say is that of them they send a total of 4 sales combined to the programs within the industry __________________ This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog! Now read without the word dog.

02-08-2007, 12:40 AM	#9
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,090	I have to say I was pretty disappointed at the turn out. The 2257 seminar was standing room only, and the .xxx seminar allowed us to stretch out and do jumping jacks without bothering anyone else.

02-08-2007, 02:32 PM	#10
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	bump for a better article

02-08-2007, 02:44 PM	#11
Mr. Jim Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,372	For once an objective fact based post without spreading lies and slandering people. I was there Tony... I was in Lawley's face... where were you???