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."

Comments

I call dibs on...

[rednip]

I call dibs on...

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.

Re:I call dibs on...

[fyngyrz]

You missed:

• MoveHereSoWeCanCensorYouAndRepressSexuality.xxx

Re:I call dibs on...

[fyngyrz]

I dont know whats more sad the notion that creating a red light district for the internet could somehow be seen repressing sexuality or just the idea that for many pornography=sexuality.

(a) The notion is that putting everything sexual into a slot where one simple action at law can force one simple action at the DNS that shuts it all down is the problem -- it has nothing to do with the name. What is depressing to me is that you can't see it coming.

(b) It doesn't matter in the least if some people's idea is that pornography == sexuality. The important idea is that you don't get to tell me, and I don't get to tell you, what is interesting, stimulating, erotic or otherwise. Sexuality is personal. You concentrate on yours, everyone else will concentrate on theirs, and there won't be any reason for you to be depressed. As soon as you being to think that your (romantic, idealistic, whatever) idea of sexuality is "the thing for everyone", you've become the enemy of the people and then you have a reason to be depressed.

Comprende?

Most would object to an adult bookstore moving in next door to their house so why should the internet be any different.

Because we're trying to use the new environment to move away from victorian (and worse) notions of self-appointed moral police proscribing everyone else's idea of what is OK, even if they're in the majority.

In real life we create zoning laws to...

Let me fix that for you: ...create ghettos and put a lance right through the heart of equality.

I fail to see what is bad about it. If your internet provider is planning to block content at the ISP level and you dont want them to...switch providers.

And what do we do when the maniacs in congress legislate the ghetto out of existence? The political system is rigged; you know it and I know it; so if we let them back these people into this corner, what happens when they take that inevitable next step... "for the children"?

Frankly the idea of not having to worry that mispelling a url is going to end up with something on the screen that neither I nor my kids need to see is appealing. I would imagine many parents as well as those whose sexuality has expanded beyond jerking off to the playboy channel would agree.

Yes, I would imagine the whole bloody bunch of you who have delegated the upbringing of your children in a padded world will be very pleased indeed. owning up to the responsibility of having children is so... tedious. Isn't it much nicer when the government does it for you?

First they came for the pornographers. But I was not a pornographer, so I said nothing.

Then they came for the others. But I was not them, either. I remained silent.

Then they came for me. And there was no one left to speak for me.

With apologies to the WWII ear personage who penned the original.

Re:I call dibs on...

[Eivind]

I dont know whats more sad the notion that creating a red light district for the internet could somehow be seen repressing sexuality

It works something like this:

• Open new .XXX TLD.
• Suggest "pornographic" sites should go there.
• *DEMAND* that now that a .XXX tld exists, pornographic sites should be removed from other (mainly .com) tlds.
• Pass laws that say you're "endangering minors" if you put pornographic content anywhere else than .xxx
• Insist that your definition of pornography is the only One True one, thus rendering my schoolbooks from when I was 12 pornographic.
• Insist that schools, libraries and public institutions block .xxx

Separation is the first step towards discrimination and censorship. After you've collected the "bad stuff" in one place under one convenient label, it's much easier to take action against it.

or just the idea that for many pornography=sexuality.

Pornography is obviously a subset of human sexuality. Whats one persons porn is another persons art anyway. (the courts in norway, for example, recently granted VAT-excemption for strip-shows for the reason that they're not principally different from other kinds of stage-performances.(and there's no VAT on culture in Norway))

Most would object to an adult bookstore moving in next door to their house so why should the internet be any different.

If *ANY* bookstore opens where the zoning-rules say "residential housing" people will protest. If the zoning-rules allow normal bookstores, they should certainly allow adult bookstores in the exact same location. Indeed that is the case where I live -- "adult" shops of all kinds are found exactly where other "non-adult" shops are. (The Mall, main shopping-streets in town, shopping-centres etc)

Besides, the argument is stupid. You run into your neighbours in RL. It's immediately obvious to everyone who visits you that there's a trash-incinerator next to your house. This has a real negative impact.

It doesn't have much of any impact to know that your domain coolstuff.com shares a TLD with trashincinerator.com or stripclub.com, the 3 names aren't "neighbours" in any reasonable sense of the word -- certainly the parallells to RL are absent.

In real life we create zoning laws to keep that stuff where its both easily accessed by those that want it and easily avoided by those who dont, on the internet we can do that with a top level domain if its done properly.

Where I live there *IS* no zone for "shops-but-no-adult-ones-please", nor should there be, and if there where I would indeed protest it loudly. (but it'd be unconstitutional anyway, so I doubt it'd happen)

Secondly, you make the elemental mistake of assuming there *exists* a simple clearly-delimiting line as to what is ".xxx" and what isn't. Who is to decide ?

Third, why the singling out of sexuality ? I object to this on principal grounds. Where is .violence ? How about .racism ? Are we gonna get a .religious or .republicans anytime soon ?

I fail to see what is bad about it. If your internet provider is planning to block content at the ISP level and you dont want them to...switch providers. Frankly the idea of not having to worry that mispelling a url is going to end up with something on the screen that neither I nor my kids need to see is appealing. I would imagine many parents as well as those whose sexuality has expanded beyond jerking off to the playboy channel would agree.

I don't see how it's relevant, but I am indeed a parent (3 kids, actually). I would *NOT* feel "comfortable" knowing that some US-based (lets be frank here!) likely religious-dominated "focus-group" decides what is and what isn't "agreeable". I'll like it even less once schools, libraries etc start filtering (

Clarification

[eldavojohn]

ICM also mentioned the collaboration with International Foundation for Online Responsibility.

As the article notes, the International Foundation for Online Responsibility (IFFOR) is not a separate organization. Nor is it in anyway committed to online responsibility of any other nature than asking and/or requiring porn sites register in the XXX TLD.

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.

Re:Clarification

[Ernesto Alvarez]

There is no .xxx domain because it is already known how good such course of action is.
Now, they've made one in order to allow some organization to get some easy cash, while screwing us all with all this "think of the children" stuff. Gee, thanks a lot for listening to what the technical community has to say.

(At least read the title of the document linked, it says a lot)

BTW, I agree with you on TLDs, only country codes should be allowed as TLDs.

It's too late to make a difference.

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Seems unlikely that existing porn sites will voluntarily move from .com to .xxx domains.

Re:It's too late to make a difference.

[spiritraveller]

Seems unlikely that existing porn sites will voluntarily move from .com to .xxx domains.

They wouldn't have to.

If they set up a permanent redirect, they can keep their .com domains, but the filter on a parent's computer would prevent the redirect from working.

Re:Yet another brick.

[ScrewMaster]

I worry about anything our government does, just on principle.

Re:They should base it on the .com's already sold.

[Chandon Seldon]

Why should anyone have a right to a new domain name just because they have some other domain name?

Just because you have "news.com" or "boobs.net" doesn't mean you own the words "news" or "boobs". If you're going to give favored access to existing domain holders, there's no public advantage whatsoever to adding new TLDs - it doesn't expand the name space, it just takes a bunch of cash from existing companies and gives it to the new registrar.

Re:if only

[YrWrstNtmr]

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?

The question not getting much discussion is...

[Nkwe]

Who gets how many dollars per registration?

protecting the children

[1u3hr]

The submitter, or Slashdot editors, say "This means that parents will most likely have an easier time protecting their children..." (this is nowhere in TFA).

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.

How about this for an idea

[Frogbert]

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?

Re:Yes, it does.

[rawtatoor]

I wish you could have made your point with out mentioning slashdot.xxx I'm not even sure what the nightmares I'm going to have because of that entail.

Dot Why? Why? Why?

[NetSettler]

wouldn't the .xxx TLD, designed to be blocked by uptight people, be the last place a porn site would want to live?

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?