ICANN Likely Finally To Approve .xxx For Porn Sites

shmG writes with this from the International Business Times: "The company that oversees Web addresses is expected to give the go-ahead on Friday for the creation of a .xxx suffix for websites with pornographic content, company officials indicated on Thursday. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which oversees the Internet on behalf of the US government, has in the past resisted creating a .xxx generic domain name system akin to those for .com and .net."

Comments

because .xxx is nothing like .sex

[oneiros27]

Doesn't anyone bother to read the RFCs? (probably not, they're too interested in trying to sell domains to make money)

• RFC 3675 : .sex considered harmful

Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex

[audubon]

The doc you linked does mention a different idea that I could get behind though, establish a .kids which would be a semi-walled garden of child appropriate material.

That's been tried, via an administered second-level domain, .kids.us

From the link, It's the first and only "youth-friendly" Web space to be established by the United States government, and it features advanced technical, policy and operational mechanisms that keep young people informed, entertained and protected online.

Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex

[yeshuawatso]

If anyone is too lazy to Google U-Rated, it's the UK equivalent of US Rated G. For a second, I was asking myself "What the hell is a U rating?" Google is your friend.

Re:because .xxx is nothing like .sex

[John Hasler]

> If anyone were thinking rationally we would make .kids, allow parents to
> lock a browser into that domain and stfu with all this "we must do it for
> the children" nonsense.

They thinking rationally. They're just lying about their motives. Otherwise they'd just control their own children and mind their own business.

Re:Obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

ICANN HAZ PORN?

you spelled PRON wrong.

Re:So...

[Knoeki]

You can do that in firefox. Type a site like that in the addressbar. It'll use the google "I'm feeling lucky" thing 9 out of 10 times. The other time it'll show you search results.

Re:Open the floodgates....

[Itninja]

First of all, it's not my definition. It's the dictionary definition.

Secondly, if the owners of the site (not one of thousands of contributors) intended its' contents to be sexually arousing, then yes. It's all about the intent of the creator/publisher. So Flickr can have little kids in bathing suits frolicking in a pool and it's nothing. But if they had a section called 'preteen hotties get wet'' then it's meets the 'porn' standard.

It gets a little tricky though when the creator or publishers' intentions are not very clear (nudists sites for example)

Re:So...

[RichardJenkins]

Have you tried just typing those words into your browser?

In mine (FF3.5) it take me straight through to the site using (I think...) Googles 'I feel lucky' feature. This way, typing in a keyword has a good chance of taking you to the site you want. If people could register single keyword domains like that, I reckon it would cause a net decrease in convenience as more and more single keywords take you directly through to someone's site.

With email, it's usually copy/paste for me, or just entering the first part of an address I've used before. I guess it could be useful, but probably not useful enough to warrant the 'search by keyword taking you to someones site' issue above.

14 years later

[mbone]

This was discussed a lot in 1996 in the IETF NewDom Working Group, which I participated in, and which partially lead to the creation of ICANN. What a zoo that was - it ended with Eugene Kashpureff going to jail for attacking the DNS root servers. For some reason, ".xxx" seemed to drive people crazy, and I am not sure it is much different today.

Re:Obvious...

[TheRaven64]

I believe the correct spelling is actually pr0n.

Re:So...

[Von Helmet]

You're welcome.