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

[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.

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 :->)