| |
CNN.com - Stage set for '.xxx' Internet addresses - Jun 2, 2005
by Decius at 12:41 pm EDT, Jun 2, 2005 |
The Internet's primary oversight body approved a plan Wednesday to create a virtual red-light district, setting the stage for pornographic Web sites to use new addresses ending in "xxx"
Lauren Weinstein has observed that this may open pandora's box as conservative groups move to push content into this TLD and ban it. Legislatures will write laws requiring ISPs to block it, as well as requiring sites with certain content to be listed under it. Some sites which are clearly not porn sites but which have some content which may be inappropriate for children will be forced into this box under duress, and they'll fight back. And then there is the matter of interstate commerce. In sum, this is going to start a constitutional fireworks show. Furthermore, I want to point out that ICANN is totally inept at choosing TLDs in general. I don't think that they should be allowed to do it. They have too much power to shape the internet, they are really not accountable to anyone, and they are terrible at it. Consider .BIZ. Self respecting people do business, not "bizzzzzz." Bizzzz is what people who fence stolen goods do. No one uses that tld. .XXX is simply a bad choice for a domain name. They should have used .SEX. XXX implies hard core porn. SEX is far more likely to be acceptable to a wider range of websites and I think would result in fewer legal battles. For example, sites about sex education would love to be listed under .sex, but would refuse to be classified as XXX. However, the conservative christians will want them clumped into the red light district so they can block them more easily, and so the fireworks... Not to mention that .KIDS, which I think is a great idea, and presents fewer legal difficulties, is still considered a bad idea by ICANN. Obviously some people might have different opinions about content that is appropriate for the .kids tld, but the issue is likely to be less contentious as no one will be forced into the domain. I actually considered applying for a position at ICANN, but I am not Joi Ito. Yet. |
| |
RE: CNN.com - Stage set for '.xxx' Internet addresses - Jun 2, 2005
by Acidus at 2:22 pm EDT, Jun 2, 2005 |
Decius wrote: Furthermore, I want to point out that ICANN is totally inept at choosing TLDs in general. I don't think that they should be allowed to do it. They have too much power to shape the internet, they are really not accountable to anyone, and they are terrible at it.
I agree. This adoption of new TLDs with little thought and no restrictions on registering inside them is causing some serious issues. Look at .tv. No one uses it. I should be able to type in [anytvshowname].tv and get its website. I can't. Fox, ABC, and other stations already have websites. .TV does nothing for them. It just another thing for registrars to sell. The owner of ford.tv might have a TV show on some local cable access channel. Ford Motor Company has ford.com. There is no reason for them to need ford.tv. However, companies don't see that .tv is another TLD that is supposed to logically seperate things. Instead, they see FORD. So they sue. ICANN and registrars not having requirements or restriction to register inside these new TLDs re-enforces the idea that the .tv TLD is nothing special. From their point of view ford.tv is not any different from ford.com. I really, really wish I could go back in time and bitch-slap the person who decided that people other than ISPs can have .net and the people other than government recognized non-profits can have .org. Structure is gone, and ICANN is piling on more TLDs. |
|
| |
RE: CNN.com - Stage set for '.xxx' Internet addresses - Jun 2, 2005
by janelane at 2:42 pm EDT, Jun 2, 2005 |
Decius wrote: The Internet's primary oversight body approved a plan Wednesday to create a virtual red-light district, setting the stage for pornographic Web sites to use new addresses ending in "xxx"
As soon as I read this article, I could not conceive of a logical reason for porn sites to register under the name. It costs a lot more, it makes it REALLY easy for ISPs, etc. to filter, and the subsequent loss of potential profits can't possibly be worth the incremental virtue of appearing kid protected. I just chalk it up to another slap on the forehead moment for internet regulation. However, I think ICANN may have ended up more than justifying their existence had they'd injected about 25% more brainpower into their decisions early on. Non-profits = .org, ford.com \= ford.net, etc. -janelane |
|
| | |
RE: CNN.com - Stage set for '.xxx' Internet addresses - Jun 2, 2005
by Decius at 4:54 pm EDT, Jun 2, 2005 |
janelane wrote:
As soon as I read this article, I could not conceive of a logical reason for porn sites to register under the name. It costs a lot more, it makes it REALLY easy for ISPs, etc. to filter, and the subsequent loss of potential profits can't possibly be worth the incremental virtue of appearing kid protected.
Thats right. I figure this registrar is banking on a regulatory environment that forces porn sites to register in his tld, at a huge mark up. |
|
CNN.com - Stage set for '.xxx' Internet addresses - Jun 2, 2005
by k at 12:57 pm EDT, Jun 2, 2005 |
The Internet's primary oversight body approved a plan Wednesday to create a virtual red-light district, setting the stage for pornographic Web sites to use new addresses ending in "xxx"
...
In sum, this is going to start a constitutional fireworks show.
...
.XXX is simply a bad choice for a domain name. They should have used .SEX. XXX implies hard core porn. SEX is far more likely to be acceptable to a wider range of websites and I think would result in fewer legal battles. For example, sites about sex education would love to be listed under .sex, but would refuse to be classified as XXX. However, the conservative christians will want them clumped into the red light district so they can block them more easily, and so the fireworks... [ But dude "SEX" is a dirty word. Just having that word entered into the official cannon of standard address suffixes would be an offense to Jesus Christ himself. Acceptance of people's interest in sex is a sign of the end times. -k] |
There is a redundant post from ubernoir not displayed in this view.
|
|
