[IP] Some ex-ex-extra comments
Begin forwarded message:
From: Frederick Lane <fslane3@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 3, 2005 10:03:25 AM EDT
To: "Farber, Dave" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Fwd: Some ex-ex-extra comments
Reply-To: Frederick Lane <fslane3@xxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Jun 2, 2005 4:13 PM
Subject: Some ex-ex-extra comments
To: "Farber, Dave" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/