Interesting People mailing list archives
Some ex-ex-extra comments
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:14:09 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Frederick Lane <fslane3 () gmail com> Date: June 3, 2005 10:03:25 AM EDT To: "Farber, Dave" <dave () farber net> Subject: Fwd: Some ex-ex-extra comments Reply-To: Frederick Lane <fslane3 () gmail com> Hi Dave -- I'm resubmitting this in case my signature block caused it to be bounced by a filter. It's certainly a conversation that is relevant to the work I've done over the last few years, and I've enjoyed following it. Thanks, Fred ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Frederick Lane <fslane3 () gmail com> Date: Jun 2, 2005 4:13 PM Subject: Some ex-ex-extra comments To: "Farber, Dave" <dave () farber net> Hi Dave -- I've followed with interest the comments on the IP list regarding what Lauren Weinstein has amusingly dubbed the "ex-ex-ex" TLD (which arguably should be reserved for divorce lawyers, private investigators, and moving companies). I'm writing to correct at least one misapprehension -- I think that the majority of online adult website operators strenuously oppose the creation of a topic-specific TLD for the obvious reasons identified by Lauren. The most salient, of course, is that far from constituting a safe haven, the proposed TLD is the cyber equivalent of a bull's-eye. A couple of years ago, I attended a meeting in Florida at which the Canadian sponsor of the TLD announced that it was joining with the Free Speech Coalition to lobby ICANN. To put it mildly, the proponents were excoriated by the webmasters in attendence. Although they obviously did not speak for everyone in the industry, I think that most adult webmasters are in agreement that this is a bad idea and potentially dangerous to First Amendment rights. At most, owners of particularly valuable adult brandnames will spend the $75 to protect their trademark rights and business interests, but will do little more with the TLD than use it to redirect traffic to their existing sites. I agree with Lauren that ICANN's action is a sop to the political powers-that-be. The interesting question is whether Congress tries to make use of the TLD mandatory through some COPA-type legislation, and how the courts react to that idea. Perhaps it's time to update the old saw and acknowledge that we can't legislate moral TLDs. Fred ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- Some ex-ex-extra comments David Farber (Jun 03)