Slashdot Mirror
XXX Top Level Domain May Still See Use
eldavojohn writes "The contract between ICANN & ICM Registry has just been revised for procedures on using the .XXX TLD. ICM is saying that the domain should be readily available for registration as early as this summer. This means that parents will most likely have an easier time protecting their children from these sites and these sites will be more tightly regulated and easier to scrutinize by authorities. ICM also mentioned the collaboration with International Foundation for Online Responsibility."
playboy.xxx
penhouse.xxx
sex.xxx
movie.xxx
and of course
whitehouse.xxx
Seriously, talk about a gold rush. A legimate porn tld would have users practically driven to it. I wonder if what they are going to do about the 'land grab'. At $60 a pop for every word in the dictionary, they stand to make some serious money right off the bat.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
ICM created IFFOR with the sole intention of having the regulation of porn sites run by a community rather than a company. The name is impressive but the goals of it seem rather specific. You can look at this two ways, ICM really wants porn regulated and easily blocked because they're thinking of the children. The other angle is that ICM wants domain registration moneys. Both can be correct and most likely are.
My work here is dung.
Seems unlikely that existing porn sites will voluntarily move from .com to .xxx domains.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Instead of opening it up like that, anyone who has a .com should be allowed to register the .xxx version at the same price as their .com address.
.com, .org and .net are all registered to different people and they would all want the .xxx version. In that case, I'd recommend a simple lottery.
.us etc.
There, no "gold rush". Even though it probably means giving up some profit, it's the right thing to do.
There may be some cases where
But all of this is stupid anyway. The Internet is more international now. We should be dropping new 3 letter TLD names and sticking with
Anyone else worried about this?
. XXXandLinks.htm
Authorities and officials requiring all "questionable"
material be required to don the XXX TLD? again at brief
glance it looks like a good idea, but in the long run it
could be hazardous for free speech in a whole..
Reading material:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/BriefHistoryof
:(){
they would then REQUIRE any and all illicit sexual content on the web to use .xxx
Just two questions:
Who defines illicit sexual content?
Who is the worldwide enforcer?
Who gets how many dollars per registration?
This is bullshit. How does creating a NEW domain for porn protect anyone? Only if at the same time porn is made illegal everywhere else, something that is not publicly advocated by the sponsors of .xxx. Though it's suspected that's an objective. However, no one has been able to clean porn out of any TLD and this remains impossible to do except as a symbolic and empty "We're protecting children from porn" statement. The only benefit of this new domain is the registrars who will collect $60 per year for all those existing porn sites who will be blackmailed into buying a corresponding .xxx domain to protect their brand from typosquatters. No one will set up a site solely on .xxx, a formula to be blocked by default from many users; they'll all just redirect to .coms or CC TLDs. No one will be "protected" from porn at all.
So that it won't turn into a "gold rush" with lots of "squatters" fighting over it. If someone has already gone to the effort to develop whitehouse.com as a porn site, then why not make it easier for everyone and give them first shot at whitehouse.xxx?
Adding a new TLD will also move "a bunch of cash" to the "new registrar". The only question is who will provide that cash.
And it does "expand the name space". It is a new TLD. Go ahead and register slashdot.xxx if you want to. But I'd still prefer to give CmdrTaco first shot at it.
What you probably meant is that it won't add any new porn sites. That is probably correct. But it really does not matter. Anyone who wants to set up a porn site right now can do so.
All this will do is allow the legitimate porn sites to redirect their sites to the
It won't solve the whole problem, but it will allow the legitimate porn sites to "protect the children" without subjecting them to squatters trying to drive up the price.
Although I still believe that this would be better served as *.xxx.us instead.
NO IT DOESN'T. Please at least pretend you've read RFC 3675.
http://outcampaign.org/
Wouldn't it be better to have a .kid domain name. And only give that to sites are are deemed suitable to be viewed by kids?
Forgive me if someone has already made this point, but wouldn't the .xxx TLD, designed to be blocked by uptight people, be the last place a porn site would want to live?
Property is theft.
The problem isn't with the true .xxx folks, who probably don't really care and figure their market will find them.
The problem is with people who have content that is ambiguous and only "arguably" covered by this.
The problem is there is no .PG, .PG-13, .R, .X before .XXX ... which means there will suddenly be a binary division between
"good" and "bad". The world is not so black and white.
The real problem is that there is "middle ground", and there must be at minimum three systems, not too: Things unambiguously acceptable, things unambiguously outrageous, and things in between (i.e., hybrid). By making only two groups, you necessarily merge the hybrid with either the protectedthe outrageous. To say that anything not for highly protected people is outrageous is ridiculous and a sudden huge shift to the conservative that seems unlikely to succeed, though it would be a stretch to say that nothing like that would ever be tried--consider Prohibition.
Also, since it's defined in a way that makes it sound like you're in with scum, anyone who voluntarily enters is practically signing a confession that they think their ambiguous content to be depraved. I think that's the saddest of all: That someone who is just worried they might offend someone is basically forced to stand in the street and wave a sign saying "kick me" as their reward for being nice.
It would actually be an infinitely saner thing to create a .G or .KIDS domain where people could move to who want to live in a bubble.
There would then be no confusion about who belonged there: anyone who wanted to live by a lot of rules and wanted to be around others of like kind. And there would be very little motivation to cheat, since people who like that kind of thing would rush to it. There's no stigma, after all.
Nor are the standards for what must be in this domain clear in a way that makes sense globally. It seems to me something that will not be meaningfully able to be administered globally, since some countries that think nothing of certain controversial issues will not require .XXX, and it will just end up a casual tax on those who do choose to use it.
Or else it will be be the Internet version of McCarthyism, and the .XXX will gradually expand to be the list of everyone... until it breaks down and you can't watch a PG movie without it being .XXX and people say "why is this closet so crowded?" and demand to be let out.
None of the present plan makes any sense, really. So why are they doing it? The unspoken truth, of course, is that this is not about Net safety. It is about dictating morality. And why is that? Perhaps because they're being unable to sell the same morality voluntarily.
The strange thing to me is that this is all about sex. What about violence? Will there be a .MURDER TLD for people who think killing others is bad?
Will the evening news go there? What about unpopular wars? Or just people who are trying to save young women from unscrupulous coathanger-wielding men in alleys or trying to save the world from overpopulation?
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Of all the things I could pretend to have done (gone to the moon, won a Super Bowl, poured hot grits on Natalie Portman), you want me to pretend that I've read an RFC? No dice!