Final Decision Deferred On ".xxx" Domains

Hugh Pickens writes "The Associated Press reports that the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has deferred a decision until June on whether to create a '.xxx' Internet suffix as an online red-light district, beginning a 70-day process of consultations on a domain that could help parents block access to adult sites. ICM Registry LLC first proposed the '.xxx' domain in 2000, and ICANN has rejected it three times already since then, but an outside panel last month questioned the board's latest rejection in 2007, prompting the board to reopen the bid. Backers of '.xxx' have billed the proposal as a way for the adult-entertainment industry to clean up its act, though some adult sites worry that governments would wind up mandating the use of '.xxx' and that sites with the '.xxx' suffix could easily be blocked by government web filters in the future. 'I am very concerned and fearful of censoring adult material that should be made available for adults. It scares the hell out of me,' says Malcolm Day, head of AdultShop.com, adding that if adult websites weren't allowed to have '.com' domains and could only register under the '.xxx' address, then 'many governments (across the world) would try to block them.'"

Comments

Exactly backwards

[Angst Badger]

People who want a "kid-safe" Internet should create a G-rated TLD for their material and block everything else. Having an adult-only TLD is just asking for trouble. I am reminded of the effort in the 80's spearheaded by Tipper Gore to label record albums. It started with profanity and sex, and before long, they we're trying to put "occult" warnings on anything that deviated from (their version of) orthodox Christianity. Ghettoization always leads to extermination.

It's high time we called out the censors for using children as human shields.

Re:Exactly backwards

[xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D]

No I think they got this going the right away around. The Internet will finally reach its full potential once everyone can filter out everything except .xxx domains.

Re:Exactly backwards

[wisty]

The same way you enforce adult sites to go to xxx - you don't. Embedded ratings could only be "opt-in" - just like most standards on the net. Just like .xxx would be. Anything else would just be too hard to enforce.

Re:Exactly backwards

[tverbeek]

What happens when someone puts sex-ed info on a web site in the .kid domain, and American Puritan Society objects? Or someone creates www.heatherhastwomommies.kid and the anti-homosexual lobby cries foul? Who decides whether it's OK?

If people want to create a walled garden online for their kids to play in, and use software to keep them there, I'm perfectly supportive of that. But the top level of the domain hierarchy is the wrong place to do that. Do it at the second level. Let private independent agencies or communities or whatever create walledgarden.org or keepmybabysafe.com or ohlookabutterfly.net, let them manage the content there according to their own standards, and let parents choose to use any of these sites (or none) to entertain their children. Restricting one's children to *.walledgarden.org is no more difficult than restricting them to *.kid. And meanwhile, the rest of us, who are not children, are free to use an internet that doesn't make decisions about content for us.

Re:Exactly backwards

[S.O.B.]

A kid friendly TLD is another way of saying pedophile friendly TLD.

Re:Exactly backwards

[Ernesto Alvarez]

Actually, having part of the hierarchy solely for kids would be a great idea, but not for the obvious reasons.

You should allocate kids.us (if you yanks are so worried about it, that's where it belongs, the rest of the world doesn't give a damn about it) for such content.

Then you could create penalties for posting "indecent" material into this subtree of DNS. Since we're talking about DNS, the penalties should go to the owner of the DNS domain. The meaning of "indecent" is irrelevant and can be anything (you'll see as I present my reasoning).

Now, when someone comes trying to do censorship "for the children", you can just point that there's a perfectly child-safe domain protected by laws, with very harsh penalties for not respecting its intended purpose. All of that would be true.

However, if you've had read the literature you'd know that making such guarantee is impossible. Therefore no sane person would get a subdomain of "kids.us". However any busybodies can be easily told they should stop complaining and use the tools given to them (after all, the subdomain would indeed be protected by laws, and they should really be enforced). If they balk at the prospect of having such punishments applied to them, telling them that they are obviously not that interested in the children and are clearly hypocrites (maybe they would be tempted to put something "indecent"? or maybe they just talk but aren't trully willing to take the responsibility to make a clean web for the future generations, blah, blah).

In the end, only extremists will be willing to get .kids.us domains, no sane people would be even interacting with that thing, parents would get to choose if they let their kids out of the walled garden (and if they fail to do so, when they wanted, then they're irresponsable parents), and everybody else gets to browse porn without being distracted by the think-of-the-children crowd.

I even have a slogan for the domain: "kids.us, the clean place for kids that sucks".

The most that can happen is that a few extremists get punished (or whatever) when the sites are inevitably hacked.

Problem solved.

Re:Exactly backwards

[Alsee]

I completely agree with all the problems you cite for a .kids type domain, and I completely agree the correct thing to do would be for people to use second level walledgarden.org type domains. However the world sucks, stupid people routinely demand idiotic and destructive things, and politicians all too often give it to them.

So while I agree with everything you say, I support a .kids type domain to the extent that it can be used to siphon off these people and their bad ideas. It provides an outlet where these people can satisfy their crusade-compulsion and they can play out their bad ideas. A place where they can fight with each other over all of the problems you list, a place they can do all the dumb things they like and cause all the damage they wish, all within a contained area. All without causing any harm or damage outside their pointless harmless .kids domain.

You're right the correct thing for them to do is just apply for a routine second level domain where they can do whatever they like, but obviously they already can do that, and obviously they are not going to be satisfied with that. These activists don't actually want to set up some kid-safe area, they don't actually want to do anything themselves, they are fighting to make the do something. They don't want to solve their problem, they want the government to solve it for them. And their "problem" isn't that they don't like what they are accessing on the internet, their problem is that they don't like what other people can find on the internet. They don't want something fixed for themselves, they are crusaders who want to forcibly impose their "help" upon everyone else. They are fanatically "helpful" people who want to run around forcibly applying leaches to everyone in order to prevent fictional diseases.

I say a bad idea such as a .kids domain might be a useful idea if it gives these destructively-helpful people the illusion that they are successfully helping their intended victims.... err I mean helping their intended beneficiaries.

Now I admit that it may lead to a problem with these people making demands that schools and libraries have some sort of mandatory filter restricted to the .kids domain. And yes, I acknowledge that some children (and adults) may become victims of that sort of idiocy. However I believe that attempting to impose that sort of filter would be completely unworkable and it would be an almost instantaneous blatant failure. I believe it would result in far less harm than their current efforts to impose upon students some ideological-candyland version of the full internet.

Hell, in an ideal world I would fully support a .xxx domain. In theory it's a great idea. Let porn sites or anyone else grab a .xxx domain if they like, cool. The only reason I don't support it is because in the real world idiots view .xxx as some sort of "fix" for their "problem", and then they obviously expect that "fix" to actually work for solving their problem. They expect "bad" stuff is supposed to be in the .xxx domain, and only within the .xxx domain. So they expect laws to make that true, they expect laws to force things to actually work the way they want and expect them to work. They start demanding stupid destructive and unworkable laws to imprison anyone who puts "objectionable" material on a normal general website. And then all of the problems you list in your post become a catastrophic plague upon the internet itself.

The only problem with your post is that you offered a reasonable rational solution. You often can't fix an unreasonable irrational fanatical people-problem with a reasonable rational fix.

-

Re:Exactly backwards

[jonwil]

The answer is to make the kid-friendly domain a .kids.us domain
Then anything that is considered "G rated" by the US (i.e. what would be G or safe for kids if rated by the MPAA, ESRB or TV ratings people) would be allowed.

Top level domains wont make for less pron

[twisteddk]

I dont get this kind of thinking. Creating a toplevel domain surely would make it easier for people to find the porn they're looking for. Nothing less, nothing more
But BANNING domains on that note, would as far as I can see only lead to the downfall of the toplevel domain, as porn providers would stop using it as it's not good business.

And in any event, I dont really see the currently invested xxx providers as being willing to give up their lucrative .com or .org domains. So at most we'll get another toplevel domain that you need to register to "own" your own brand. Anyone for slashdot.xxx ?

Re:Top level domains wont make for less pron

[sopssa]

Anyone for slashdot.xxx ?

Not a bad idea, we could use it to have nude pictures of slashdotters.

Re:Top level domains wont make for less pron

[tompaulco]

Not a bad idea, we could use it to have nude pictures of slashdotters.
Won't work for me. I don't have a wide aspect screen yet.

Re:Top level domains wont make for less pron

[Vellmont]

But BANNING domains on that note, would as far as I can see only lead to the downfall of the toplevel domain, as porn providers would stop using it as it's not good business.

Until countries make laws requiring "all websites with adult content in them are required to register under the .xxx domain". No big deal you say. I certainly don't go to sites like that.

Ever go to Amazon? Amazon sells adult videos. They also list a wide variety of sex toys, vibrators, etc that many people object to. Amazon doesn't sell this directly, but they do sell it through another company that lists on Amazon. Does that make Amazon belong under .xxx? Should the stuff that some people don't like be moved to a special amazon.xxx?

Creating the domain is but one step in the process of segregating the internet into various categories. Once you require everything to be in neat little categories you can start to control access to those categories, track them, etc. More insidious is creating these dividing lines is an attempt to make adult products which are already mainstream and have been for at least 40 years if not more into something not mainstream.

Re:Top level domains wont make for less pron

[Anonymous Coward]

How did you know my dick was huge?

This Whole Debate Is Lasting Longer Than '4 Hours'

[WrongSizeGlass]

Enough already. Clearly they are afraid to make a decision which is in and of itself a decision. If I keep putting off deciding to do something then I am in fact not doing it - only under the guise of indecision, procrastination or requiring further consideration. Shit or get off the pot, guys. Either way a lot of people won't be happy.

The whole block/filter argument.

[The Living Fractal]

and that sites with the '.xxx' suffix could easily be blocked by government web filters in the future.

It's already very easy to block adult sites. This is pointless to mention and the real issue is not how easy it is to block these sites but that censorship in general is never a good idea, no matter how easy or hard it is.

And it's still a horrible idea

[hackiavelli]

Putting aside the entire debate on what qualifies as adult material, you still have the fact that the undisputed pornographic websites aren't going to change TLDs unless forced to hence defeating the entire purpose. It would also lead to the somewhat embarrassing situation of big companies like Google, Microsoft, and Apple having to buy .xxx domains to protect their trademarks.

Re:Only half a solution

[tverbeek]

And who, exactly, would determine what is "obscene"?

(I'd offer to do it, but I'm a bit busy.)

YRO?

[goldaryn]

It scares the hell out of me,' says Malcolm Day, head of AdultShop.com, adding that if adult websites weren't allowed to have '.com' domains and could only register under the '.xxx' address, then 'many governments (across the world) would try to block them.'"

They better not try that here, we have the Human Rights Act

(I don't care what anyone else says, fapping is a human right..)

I have the weight of the legal world behind me! (most of them are wankers :->)

Re:Unfounded worry

[tverbeek]

"It seems to me that a government could not legally block the TLD unless porn was actually illegal in that country."

You do realize that in most countries it's the government which creates the laws making things illegal?

Re:Only half a solution

[Thiez]

> With .xxx, expect it to become opt-in. And then people know you watch porn. They have it in written form. This would be even worse if you had to apply for accessing specific .xxx pages.

Well someone would simply start proxxxy.com... I think there is a fortune to be made there.

Re:Well

[sopssa]

Why would you need a good excuse for porn anyway. You don't need to say "But I'm only human" or that porn saves people from getting raped. You can just say you enjoy fapping every now and then, it's not a secret that everyone does it. Even some girls do it daily, and it's also fun thing to do with your girlfriend. Those who are against porn have issues, not those who like to enjoy life and along with it sexuality too.

Look at just some of the ancillary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at some of the ancillary companies that would be affected

The Kao Corporation [The makers of Jergens Lotion]
Kimberly-Clark [The makers of Kleenex brand tissues]
HanesBrands [Worldwide distributors of gym socks]
S. C. Johnson & Son [Manufactures of several cleaning agents, including Windex]
Safer Networking Limited [Developer of Spybot - Search and Destroy]
Chiquita Brands International Inc. [Grower of the famous Chiquita Banana]
Maytag Corporation [World famous creator of Washing Machines]

Won't somebody think of the private industry?!

Clean porn ? No thanks !

[ciderVisor]

"Backers of '.xxx' have billed the proposal as a way for the adult-entertainment industry to clean up its act,"

Personally, I'd prefer if they kept the acts nice 'n' dirty.

Re:Well

[el3mentary]

I only watch porn for the plot and character development.

Re:This is many separate issues

[russotto]

The issues aren't separate. Once you ghettoize porn into an .xxx domain, it makes it much easier (both technically and politically) to block. In fact, it's likely the default would become to block the .xxx domain. Not just for corporations, but for ISPs (at the urging of the more prudish members of the community). Oh, and when the company filters websites at work it IS censorship, just on a smaller scale (and perhaps more justifiable).

Re:Well

[Kong the Medium]

Yes Dude, I hear you. I recently watched a porn named "Logjammin" and was disrupted before the end. Since then, I started to wonder what had happend next: Did he fix the cable or didn't he?

Wanna think that over again?

[langelgjm]

s/TLD/playground/g

as usual...

[hitmark]

i say the basic problem is the non-national TLDs, at least as long as this planet is not under one government.

why? because as long as that is the case, there will be multiple, conflicting interests about those TLDs.

and sadly, thanks to the dot-com era and similar, the economic sharks smell money in relation to trade in domain names, meaning it will be nearly impossible to dismantle the existing system unless someone pays the owners of the non-national domains at least as much as they payed for them in the first place.

Re:This is many separate issues

[TheMonkeyhouse]

i think you are missing the whole point. they are separate - classifying data is not the same as restricting access to it. they are two separate points.
they use .gov for government web sites and no one complains about that and it doesn't automatically imply censorship.
if someone blocks a domain you are not happy with then change ISP - there are always choices.

Duh

[BancBoy]

Everybody knows Anonymous Coward is a huge dick.