×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ICANN Rejects .XXX Top Level Domain, Again

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the third-time-is-the-charm dept.

The Internet 134

eldavojohn writes "After yet another contentious vote on the .xxx concept, ICANN has finally rejected the pornography TLD. The debate has gone on for quite some time, and the 9-5 decision was the third time a decision was reached on the subject. This is the second time the body has ruled against the idea, and is likely the last time we'll see it come up for vote any time soon. One member abstained from voting. From the article: 'Many of the board members said they were concerned about the possibility that ICANN could find itself in the content regulation business if the domain name was approved. Others criticized that, saying ICANN should not block new domains over fears like that, noting that local, state and national laws could be used to decide what is pornographic and what is not. Other board members said they believed that opposition to the domain by the adult industry, including Web masters, content providers and others, was proof that the issue was divisive and that .xxx was not a welcome domain.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

134 comments

Good news for porn companies (5, Funny)

dour power (764750) | about 7 years ago | (#18542061)

Rejection is what keeps 'em in business.

Re:Good news for porn companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18542293)

I thought it was not coming to early kept them in business? This certainly will help either way!

Re:Good news for porn companies (4, Funny)

ehrichweiss (706417) | about 7 years ago | (#18543111)

"Erection is what keeps 'em in business"

Fixed that for ya..;)

Re:Good news for porn companies (2, Funny)

abundance (888783) | about 7 years ago | (#18544873)

"Erectile dysfunction is what keeps 'em in business", actually.

Re:Good news for porn companies (2, Funny)

ehrichweiss (706417) | about 7 years ago | (#18545211)

I thought that was Pfizer and Eli Lilly, not porn...though porn keeps those guys in business as well since the actors apparently take it to, err, work.

An important thing to note (4, Insightful)

jimstapleton (999106) | about 7 years ago | (#18542063)

Is that classification does not equal regulation. It can be used to assist regulation, but usually classification serves a lot of good purposes outside of regulation. That being said, I don't know that .xxx would be the only place the target material could be put (if it were, then it would be regulation), but honestly, unlike a '.adv' (advertisement), I would think they would like the TLD themselves (the content providers) because it would make them just that little bit easier to pick out.

Not quite... (3, Insightful)

brennanw (5761) | about 7 years ago | (#18542119)

From the article:

Other board members said they believed that opposition to the domain by the adult industry, including Web masters, content providers and others, was proof that the issue was divisive and that ".xxx" was not a welcome domain.


It sounds like not everyone in the adult industry was happy about the domain.

Actually, it sounds like, this time around, there were more people against it than for it, but the people against it didn't really find a consensus on why they opposed it, only that they did. Which is interesting. At least this time around it doesn't look like a case of "the Republicans told us to reject this."

Re:Not quite... (2, Informative)

avronius (689343) | about 7 years ago | (#18542907)

See, there's an interesting thing that people seem to fail to realize.

There's nothing preventing you (or any industry / company / entity) from using .xxx as your TLD. Just point to your own "root" servers.

If you, as a content provider, wish to allow people access to a TLD that doesn't exist, you need only write a simple application that points to a different set of root servers. Your new list would likely include the "standard" root servers *after* your set of root servers had been checked.

It's not like this is rocket science. You want to d/l pr0n from the .xxx website? Visit xxxroot and download our handy dandy little plugin.

This is one thing about this sort of argument that has always baffled me. If the rules won't change to support your business, change your business to circumvent the rules.

YMMV

Re:Not quite... (1)

rs79 (71822) | about 7 years ago | (#18543777)

Ay, carumba. For the record I was there the day xxx was born and have followed this with interest although I have no relationship with the xxx people other than I've men them and we tal every couple of years. They're locals.

Putting .xxx in alternaitve roots was an idea that was tried for a while. The xxx people feel than their inclusion ni alt.roots jeopardizes the "icann process". Never mind the icann process means getting bitch slapped because other world governments (through the "GAC") have told icann ni no uncertain terms that this biotch will never see the light of day.

The xxx folks have only spent a million anf a half on this. Their adversaries spent 100X that in 98 alone. I dropped out of the fruitless folly known as icann watching years ago but updates from a mutual attorney friend. I'm surprised they haven't publicized some of the dirty shite that has gone on behind the scenes in opposition to this tld but I suppose they don't want to upset the apple card.

Then there's .web which Jon Postel himself said "go ahead and deploy" in 98 and Darth Cerf recognized in 2000. 10 years later... nada.

Keep in mind xxx had passed icann approval and was sent to DoC for inclusion into the legacy root and Carl Rove himself had it shut down as a favour to the religous right 2 years ago. Suddenly other governments voiced objection to it who hadn't before.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Re:Not quite... (2, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | about 7 years ago | (#18546151)

The reason there's no consensus about why it was rejected is because there are so many different reasons, coming from entirely different perspectives. People in the porn industry didn't like it because using it would require submitting to regulation from the registry administrators, and because not using it might open them up to criminalization. Social conservatives didn't like it because they felt it would legitimize porn. Porn consumers didn't like it because they wouldn't be able to get their fix at work. Free speech advocates didn't like it because it could lead to laws putting a chilling effect on non-porn expression in the other TLDs. And pragmatists didn't like it because it was such an obviously unworkable proposal that would have no practical benefit. Granted, there are people in each of these populations who feel differently, but with a deal-killing reason for just about any ideological perspective, it doesn't surprise me that this keeps getting turned down.

Re:An important thing to note (2, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 7 years ago | (#18542121)

Correcting a typo:

I would think they wouldn't like the TLD themselves (the content providers) because it would make them just that little bit easier to pick out.

Re:An important thing to note (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | about 7 years ago | (#18542171)

Actually, that is /not/ a typo. Easier to find = easier to get customers. That's an industry where they could care less about the people who don't like them, therefore they could care less if those people know where they are online. And if such sites aren't required to have the TLD, then they could also have a .con address as well.

So, really it is to no disadvantage to them for this to be available if it is not required.

Re:An important thing to note (2, Interesting)

Luscious868 (679143) | about 7 years ago | (#18542173)

I would think it's a win / win for all involved. Those who want to get to adult content would have an easier time finding it and by the same token those who want to filter it out would have time doing that as well. Where is the downside?

Re:An important thing to note (2, Funny)

ohearn (969704) | about 7 years ago | (#18542233)

Except that half the people looking for it are high school and college students and this would allow schools to filter sites a lot easier. If you've ever had the "fun" of running a college computer lab you know that you have to watch some of the computers in the back sorners even in the middle of the day at times.

Re:An important thing to note (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | about 7 years ago | (#18542239)

Those releasing it would want to be able to get past the filters. The new TLD could be filtered, but if they still have access to the .coms as well, they only need to register an additional DNS entry, not expensive.

So, in the end, there no /down/ side for anyone, but the only ones with an up side are the adult industries.

Re:An important thing to note (1)

k_187 (61692) | about 7 years ago | (#18542255)

So, in the end, there no /down/ side for anyone, but the only ones with an up side are the adult industries.

And that's a problem because?

Re:An important thing to note (1)

superbus1929 (1069292) | about 7 years ago | (#18543811)

Yes, but how would it be enforced? The top level adult sites, yes, they'd go to .xxx. But that won't stop the less legitimate sites from trying to sneak around... not only will those sites ignore the .xxx domain - and by extension, the filtering of it - those sites are that much more likely to have malware and viruses.

It's a great idea in theory, but I don't see it being properly executed.

Re:An important thing to note (5, Insightful)

plover (150551) | about 7 years ago | (#18542411)

Where is the downside?

Regulation and control. If there was an .xxx domain, it wouldn't be long for the Christian* Firewall Network (CFN?) to spring up trying to block it everywhere, and there would be demands to block it at ISPs, etc. It wouldn't be long before legislation was passed requiring all adult content to be "moved" to this domain. (Of course, we're just thinking of the children.)

The mis-perception is that all porn would somehow magically be labeled .xxx, and people would naively think like you did: it's easy to find and easy to block.

Meanwhile, the technological reality is that such blocking would do nothing to stop porn originating from domains outside of the U.S. It also would not stop dotted decimal addresses from working. But because there would be this new "law" requiring porn to be hosted in the .xxx domain, the CFN idiots would be confused as to why their teenaged sons could still access porn even though it was supposed to be blocked, and would demand more regulations to stop this "illegal porn".

Voluntary industry classifications have almost always turned into regulations (movie and video game ratings, light truck emissions, organic foods, etc.) It's just that on the internet, that idea doesn't work worth a damn, so why encourage it?

(*Feel free to replace 'Christian' with the intolerant fundamental religious idiots of your choice.)

Re:An important thing to note (2, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 7 years ago | (#18542685)

(*Feel free to replace 'Christian' with the intolerant fundamental religious idiots of your choice.)
I hope you realize the irony of your comments. You could have easily made the same point WITHOUT insulting anybody, and your argument would have been that much stronger. As it is now, when I look at your post the most striking thing is intolerance on your part...

Re:An important thing to note (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 7 years ago | (#18542751)

I hope you realize the irony of your comments. You could have easily made the same point WITHOUT insulting anybody, and your argument would have been that much stronger.

Well, it's certainly true that many if not most Christians are fine on this issue, but it is true that much of the pro-censorship lobby on this issue comes from religious (mainly Christian, perhaps simply because there are more of them) groups. At least, that's certainly what's happening in the UK (e.g., a recent issue involving churches and Muslim leaders calling for simple possession of R18 material, as well as anything unclassified by the BBFC (censor board), to be a criminal offence).

Re:An important thing to note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18546675)

Grow up and get over it.

I'm only intolerant of whiners.

Re:An important thing to note (1)

TufelKinder (66342) | about 7 years ago | (#18542761)

If there was an .xxx domain, it wouldn't be long for... and there would be demands ... It wouldn't be long before legislation...
Can we say, "slippery slope" fallacy?

Re:An important thing to note (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 7 years ago | (#18542979)

Can we say, "slippery slope" fallacy?

Can we say, sometimes slippery slopes are very real? GP's scenario seems not only reasonable but almost inevitable.

Re:An important thing to note (2, Insightful)

SquareVoid (973740) | about 7 years ago | (#18543143)

The Slippery Slope Fallacy stops being a fallacy when the person arguing the point provides evidence that there is a slippery slope. In his argument, he stated that movies/video games/emmissions/organic food all started off as voluntary labels and ended up regulated. I don't know how true this is (I always thought movie/game ratings were voluntary) but it is left as an exercise to the reader to prove that the slippery slopes given were in fact false. If they end up as true, then he has a valid point.

Re:An important thing to note (1)

TufelKinder (66342) | about 7 years ago | (#18543551)

Evidence?

Having your movie rated is optional (and obviously
hasn't caused any reduction in the production of
porn movies!): http://www.filmratings.com/questions.htm#Q6 [filmratings.com]

I'm not sure what the reference to organic foods is
about... Obviously you're not allowed to advertise a
product as something it's not. How is that different
from any other food product on the market?

Re:An important thing to note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18542901)

Christian* Firewall Network (CFN?)
Marketing 101 finally pays dividends - what do you think of Christians Upholding Network Transmission Sanctity ,.. Sorry!

And who classifies this stuff? (5, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | about 7 years ago | (#18543195)

The other, and I feel even more important, issue is.. who gets to decide what "porn" is? The definition of what is and isn't acceptable changes from year to year, country to country, state to state, and household to household. People have been arguing over what's acceptable for (literally) ages, and it's definitely not going to be solved anytime soon.

So, if we did get the .xxx domain, what has to be moved there? One person's obscenity is another person's fine art, medical diagram, or even religious iconography. Everything from Gray's Anatomy to cultural studies to the contents of any art museum could end up sequestered to .xxx because someone somewhere doesn't want the kiddies to accidentally see naughty bits.

Re:And who classifies this stuff? (0, Redundant)

helicologic (845077) | about 7 years ago | (#18543505)

"...could end up sequestered to .xxx because someone somewhere doesn't want the kiddies to accidentally see naughty bits."
... or naughty tits.

Re:An important thing to note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18543251)

"(*Feel free to replace 'Christian' with the intolerant fundamental religious idiots of your choice.)"

Ok. Jew.

Not so funny now, is it?

You are still a bigot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18543745)

"Feel free to replace 'Christian' with the intolerant fundamental religious idiots of your choice"

This "disclaimer" does not let you off the hook. The fact is that no established religion is in favour of pornography. By singling out the Christians for mention, you betray where your prejudices are.

Re:An important thing to note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18544203)

I absolutely agree with everything you said.

My only worry -- and I didn't have this worry two years ago -- is I am watching my daughter grow up. Hopefully she will be a nerd like mom and dad.

Which means she is going to be on the Internet -- and I would like to keep her from pole dancing, smoking or riding until at least age 40 (I could live with 18 I guess if I don't think about it too much).

I guess I will just rip the CAT5 out of the wall now. :)

Re:An important thing to note (1)

Sgt_Jake (659140) | about 7 years ago | (#18544451)

The mis-perception is that all porn would somehow magically be labeled .xxx... like all .com addresses are for commercial sites, .org's are for non-profits and so on? pfft. The porn industry is at the forefront of filtering, cataloging and organizing information. You can find just about any fetish you can think of [also - fun thing to do when you're bored...].
You're right on two counts - the law won't stop porn, and legislation will probably be passed. But you fail to follow your own logic to it's conclusion. Legislation that's passed will be easily by-passed by technology, making the laws pretty useless and not hindering porn. Net effect - 0. However! A .xxx domain isn't a bad idea, any more than .com, .net or .org are. Personally, I'm not only fine with it, I'm all for it - makes legitimate porn (at least some of it, if not the worst of it) available in the context of what it is, while letting me look at playboy.com without hitting a bad link on purpose. I mean, on accident...
Movie and Video game ratings were voluntary because a worse system was going to be mandated - it was a pre-emptive "we'll do it" so they could at least have some measure of control. Note - it worked. The movie/music/video game industry makes a fortune off that rating system as opposed to the COST other industries incur from regulations (like light truck emissions).

Re:An important thing to note (2, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | about 7 years ago | (#18542439)

I would think it's a win / win for all involved. Those who want to get to adult content would have an easier time finding it and by the same token those who want to filter it out would have time doing that as well. Where is the downside?
As someone in the adult industry, I do agree that those are upsides to the .xxx domain. The downsides that concern me would be:

1. whether we would be in some way coerced to use this domain exclusively (actually quite easy to do if the US and UK governments (being the most uptight about the adult industry) force the credit card companies not to accept payments from other domains - they already use this kind of pressure to effectively ban some types of fetish material)

2. the domain name landrush - a lot of us have spent a lot of time building up brands only to have some squatter scoop up the equivalent on the xxx domain. (Net regulators have done a truly awful job of this kind of thing in the past - the .eu one being a prime example)

3. I would be astonished if registering a .xxx domain is not going to be more expensive than a .com one.

4. Regulation of existing domains is so poor that there will be just as much mass cybersquatting and link farms and all sorts of other abuse using the new domain. This simply gives the religious right, and other killjoys, more ammunition to try to stop or further control what is for the most part an honest living for many people. Those of us in the industry are already regulated more than pretty much any other type of business.


I'd really like to see a situation where the domain system is scrapped. It has never worked as intended.

Re:An important thing to note (1)

bcattwoo (737354) | about 7 years ago | (#18542773)

I would think it's a win / win for all involved. Those who want to get to adult content would have an easier time finding it...

Because finding porn on the internet is currently soooo difficult.

Re:An important thing to note (1)

tverbeek (457094) | about 7 years ago | (#18546253)

The downside is that it wouldn't work. There would still be oodles of porn in the .com TLD, because no sane porn peddler would stop using his established domain and risk letting it fall into someone else's hands. As for making it easier to find for those who want it... what, like it's somehow difficult now?

More drama plz (3, Funny)

Wiseman1024 (993899) | about 7 years ago | (#18542103)

So they add retarded domains such as .biz or .info and reject .xxx? Way to go. Perhaps we could get .enterprise and .xml approved instead.

The horses have left, who cares about the barn.... (5, Insightful)

ip_freely_2000 (577249) | about 7 years ago | (#18542109)

...door?

Having a .XXX domain would make a simplistic filters only effective for simple people. I doubt a porn domain owner is going to drop chickswithhorses.com and move everything over to chickswithhorses.xxx. He'll just use redirection and have two front doors to his domain.

ISP's and government authorities will NEVER be able to move porn off of .com. There's simply too may jurisdictions out there in our wonderful world.

All of the .XXX media attention and effort seems pointless to me.

Re:The horses have left, who cares about the barn. (4, Interesting)

Cerberus7 (66071) | about 7 years ago | (#18542193)

See, that's why I think TLDs are redundant. There was a proposal some time ago to abandon TLDs, and restructure DNS. Since nobody seems to care about what a TLD means anymore, aside from perhaps the US Gov't still using .gov, why keep up with the charade? .com, .net, .org seem to have very little relevance to the content of the actual sites.

Not all TLDs are redundant (4, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | about 7 years ago | (#18542367)

Country-level TLDs are significant. For example, I KNOW that http://www.toyota.ca/ [toyota.ca] takes me to Toyota Canada's page, while http://www.toyota.com/ [toyota.com] takes me to the US page. Using country-level TLDs for this purpose is correct and should be encouraged - it is a lot better than the alternatives like having a stupid URL like http://www.hyundaicanada.com/ [hyundaicanada.com] , or forcefully re-directing people based on their geographic location (what if I am using a proxy? Or what if I want information on the American prices for comparison?).

The "generic" top level TLDs however (.com, .net, and .org), are indeed irrelevant.

Personally, I think the answer is not to *abolish* TLDs, but to make them *optional*, and abolish only .com / .net / .org. Then a company doesn't have to register 3 domains, and they only have to register country-level domains in contries where they actually have a presence.

But how would you implement it - how do you reconcile those domains if different people own them, who gets the new TLD when they are amalgamated?

Re:Not all TLDs are redundant (1)

Pentagram (40862) | about 7 years ago | (#18542673)

Country-level TLDs are significant. For example, I KNOW that http://www.toyota.ca/ [toyota.ca] takes me to Toyota Canada's page, while http://www.toyota.com/ [toyota.com] takes me to the US page. Using country-level TLDs for this purpose is correct and should be encouraged - it is a lot better than the alternatives like having a stupid URL like http://www.hyundaicanada.com/ [hyundaicanada.com] , or forcefully re-directing people based on their geographic location (what if I am using a proxy? Or what if I want information on the American prices for comparison?).

Lots of companies redirect country TLDs to one website, such as www.example.co.uk -> www.example.com/uk/. It's just as convenient a standard and I don't see what advantage a TLD gets you.

But how would you implement it - how do you reconcile those domains if different people own them, who gets the new TLD when they are amalgamated?

There's no obvious solution. You could do it by lottery between the holders of the current .org/.com/.net domain, or start a new registry as a free-for-all or one of several other ways.

I think it would be worth it, but it's never going to happen.

Re:Not all TLDs are redundant (1)

brunes69 (86786) | about 7 years ago | (#18542861)

There's no obvious solution. You could do it by lottery between the holders of the current .org/.com/.net domain, or start a new registry as a free-for-all or one of several other ways. I think it would be worth it, but it's never going to happen.

I don't think either of those methods are fair. For example, I own keirstead.org (my last name), and have for over 10 years. I have always had the same email address (my first name at keirstead.org). Keirstead.com and Keirstead.net are also registered by other Keirsteads, and have been for a long time.

Now, who is to say one of us has more of a right to it than the others? How fair would it be that, after owning this domain and using it daily for over 10 years, I lose it because of some lottery drawing?

It's a complicated issue.

Re:Not all TLDs are redundant (1)

Pentagram (40862) | about 7 years ago | (#18545099)

True. OK then, org, com, and net get registered as domain names. Anyone owning a .com, .org, or .net get an automatic right to a subdomain of those domains. The owner of keirstead.org gets the right to org.keirstead, and so on. keirstead as a top-level domain is available to the first person to register it.

Not that I can see it ever happening.

There is an obvious solution. (1)

0137 (45586) | about 7 years ago | (#18543371)

Take a domain name "domain" with a tld (.tld), and rename the domain "domain.tld". The .tld would just be part of the name. All you would have to do is retain a list of the 'old' tlds so a domain is not interpreted as a subdomain. This would all be done through DNS; completely transparent for the user. Eventually old URLs would become redirects to new ones w/o tlds.

Re:Not all TLDs are redundant (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | about 7 years ago | (#18543671)

>Lots of companies redirect country TLDs to one website, such as www.example.co.uk -> www.example.com/uk/. It's just as convenient a standard and I don't see what advantage a TLD gets you.

Sure, it's not difficult to remember to append "/uk" to the URL, but the problem is that there is no standard. It could be example.com/uk, example.com/world/uk, uk.example.com, and countless other combinations.

Re:Not all TLDs are redundant (1)

Pentagram (40862) | about 7 years ago | (#18545161)

Sure, it's not difficult to remember to append "/uk" to the URL, but the problem is that there is no standard. It could be example.com/uk, example.com/world/uk, uk.example.com, and countless other combinations.

Yep, but since those are already all used, the .co.uk domain just adds to the confusion. It would be reasonably nice to have a standard though.

Re:Not all TLDs are redundant (1)

Cerberus7 (66071) | about 7 years ago | (#18542695)

I thought about saying something about country-level TLDs, but decided against it. I agree with everything you've said about those domains. As for making the transition away from the .com et al domains, keeping the existing structure in place while the transition happens shouldn't be too big of a deal. ICANN should still be the central repository for managing the new structure, but they should also be a little more discerning in who gets what domain. For instance, if you have a company named "Coca Cola Inc." they probably shouldn't be allowed to register "Pepsi" as their domain name. They can do whatever they want above their registered "cocacola" or whatever domain name, i.e. "pepsisucks.cocacola." Granted, those kinds of issues will need to be discussed and worked out, but that's the general sense I get about the situation.

Re:Not all TLDs are redundant (1)

qazsedcft (911254) | about 7 years ago | (#18542793)

Personally, I think the answer is not to *abolish* TLDs, but to make them *optional*, and abolish only .com / .net / .org. Then a company doesn't have to register 3 domains, and they only have to register country-level domains in contries where they actually have a presence. But how would you implement it - how do you reconcile those domains if different people own them, who gets the new TLD when they are amalgamated?

Why does the USA always have to be special? Just move all "generic" TLDs to .us and let the owners sort out if they want to stay in .us or move to somewhere else.

Re:Not all TLDs are redundant (1)

sremick (91371) | about 7 years ago | (#18543279)

"Country-level TLDs are significant."

Yep, because everyone with a .tv domain is based out of Tuvalu.

Re:Not all TLDs are redundant (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about 7 years ago | (#18543367)

The "generic" top level TLDs however (.com, .net, and .org), are indeed irrelevant.

Speak for yourself. It's just that the American method for handing out domain names didn't have any criteria attached to it. To get a .com.au name, you need to have an ABN (Australian Business Number), or an ACN (Australian Company Number) - that is, you have to be commercial. To get a .org.au, you need to be a registered charity or non-profit. .net wasn't really well enforced - it's under the same conditions as .com. The problem with that is that there was no TLD for individuals, but I believe they have .id.au now to cover that base.

The current TLD system *can* work, its just that the US didn't bother to try and make it (and you guys were, after all, the first country on, so you were bound to make mistakes), and you can't really fix it up retroactively, with millions of sites already registered. But don't dump the system just because you guys didn't get it to work - it's working fine for other parts of the world.

Re: TLD's (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 7 years ago | (#18544623)

Someone needs to integrate the standard /. theme here: "Think of the AverageUser!".

I think even fewer people know about .ca .uk .au than even the existence of linux! Web 1.0 worked tremendously to make ".com" the place to be. ".net" and ".org" became known as slightly more "reputable".

I think this poses a small security risk, because "Ford.cx" is not the same as "Ford.com". I can see the hordes of mis-clicks into phish sites.

I've used Redirectors for years, because "fun.at/home" type addresses are always crisper than "www.JoesFreeWebhost.com/members/username/index.ht ml". (Your redirector stays put even if you shift hosts, which is a huge gain IMO.) The problem - beginner users consistently try "www.funathome.com" or such and then tie themselves in knots.

Re:Not all TLDs are redundant (1)

jamiethehutt (572315) | about 7 years ago | (#18543959)

I KNOW that http://www.toyota.ca/ [toyota.ca] takes me to Toyota Canada's page, while http://www.toyota.com/ [toyota.com] takes me to the US page. Surely ca.toyota.com would be better? I mean it's commercial, it's Toyota's and it's their Canada site, it's also cheaper. Domain names are open to allot of interpretation...

Re:Not all TLDs are redundant (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | about 7 years ago | (#18546161)

And this depends also on how well countries regulate them. .ca has become less strict, but is still good, in that you must have a physical presence in Canada to register a .ca domain. Some countries, however, use their TLD solely as a revenue generating device and sell domains to whoever will pay (.to is an example).

Re:The horses have left, who cares about the barn. (1)

Red Alastor (742410) | about 7 years ago | (#18542931)

The best structure IMHO would be to have only one main TLD which would be int (for International or Internet, your pick) and country TLDs subdivided as each country wishes. So there could be a .us.com in which the US could enforce the commercial nature of websites if they wish so or .us.gov or dot us dot whatever they want. Same for each country.

Re:The horses have left, who cares about the barn. (1)

Marlow the Irelander (928776) | about 7 years ago | (#18546207)

This would basically wipe out the internet; bookmarks, URLs hard-coded into scripts, and e-mail addresses, amongst other things, would stop working. If you're going to rebuild the internet from scratch...well, good luck.

Re:The horses have left, who cares about the barn. (1)

berwiki (989827) | about 7 years ago | (#18542203)

Sure, it seems pointless, but create the Domain anyway. Filters can easily block some additional stuff and at the same time, provide a new domain for porn mongers to use.
I expect a lot of new websites would use the .xxx extension, even if not exclusively, it will reduce the .COM bloat.

My point is, who cares, create .ABC for all I care.

Re:The horses have left, who cares about the barn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18545371)

Hey, those sites don't work.

Re:The horses have left, who cares about the barn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18545879)

What is it with you and horses? I mean, damn, dude.

Re:The horses have left, who cares about the barn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18546525)

I doubt a porn domain owner is going to drop chickswithhorses.com and move everything over to chickswithhorses.xxx

Not only that but the business is so competitive that chances are if chickswithhorses.com gets any reasonable amount of traffic someone will beat him to the process of registering chickswithhorses.xxx and then he's SOL.

Not only that but if he also registered the equivalent domain on .net, .org, .info, .biz whatever then he's just turned his investments in those domains into a loss and he might find himself out of business if he couldn't acquire the .xxx and regulation does pass requiring him to move to .xxx

Of course ... if regulation were to pass then that's basically what the regulators would want. For as many porn sites to go out of business as possible.

There's also the case of if someone owns sexysluts.com but someone else owns sexysluts.net then who gets sexysluts.xxx ?

The first person to register it, obviously. Which leaves the other out in the cold. .xxx is a really good way to put a lot of small guys out of business. Even some big guys who aren't domain masters wouldn't be able to compete with the pro squatters who have the resources to register as many .xxx as quickly as possible the very instant the TLD becomes available.

.xxx (-1, Flamebait)

sjipca (913723) | about 7 years ago | (#18542115)

This .xxx domain would decrease the amount of little kids finding porn accidentally and then getting addicted to it later in life. WHY not just force the server administrators to reroute the address to the .xxx domain that they buy and/or host on. Geez, i see this as a case of server administrators being lazy.

Between a rock and a hard place (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18542117)

In the absence of an international treaty governing pornography, any decision to create a .xxx domain would probably violate the laws in one country and the civil rights in another. Avoiding the problem was a wise choice.

We have international treaties on things like trade and maritime law but something on pornography is unlikely because it's a moral issue. What is viewed as harmless erotica in one country will get you executed in another. Anyone trying to get the .xxx domain is just trying to get someone else to do their dirty work for them. Sorry dudes.

Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18542135)

Let's hope this is the end of the .xxx stupidity.

ICANN answers to no one. (2, Funny)

CHK6 (583097) | about 7 years ago | (#18542147)

I don't understand they don't want to regulate the domain or the content? When did ICANN start worrying about what others want to regulate in content? I thought all they did was handle the domain extensions.

So is this to say 9 of the 14 support porn? Or is it that 5 that votes for .xxx domain just wanted an easier way to find the stuff? And the 1 that abstained was "busy" doing xxx research?

Re:ICANN answers to no one. (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 7 years ago | (#18542611)

I wouldn't personally interpret it like that. It could be that all of them are for porn and that only 9 are willing to be associated or it could just mean that only 5 of the 14 think that this would do anything other than move the activity completely offshore.

In the end, the likelihood of this making any difference is quite small for the cost involved. A better focus if we want to regulate the porn industry is to keep them from spamming. I remember I set up a fake account once and was inundating within a week with hundreds of spams a day. Of course the majority were brittany teen makes out with horse things type spams.

The issue of domain names is really not worth dealing with until after spam. Perhaps the regulators could just start yanking registrations for known sites that benefit from spam.

Romans (5, Funny)

jlebrech (810586) | about 7 years ago | (#18542175)

As soon as this is finally accepted im buying the domain MM.XXX with the hope of cashing in, in 2030.

Re:Romans (1)

avronius (689343) | about 7 years ago | (#18543257)

See, and now I don't think that I'll be able to watch that M&M's commercial again - you know the one - they're playing strip poker with a couple of young ladies, Peanut loses and then blushes because he doesn't want to show his peanut...

Who decides (2, Interesting)

sskinnider (1069312) | about 7 years ago | (#18542231)

ICANN was right to reject the .xxx TLD. If it had been implemented, we would see a rash of laws designed to utilize by classifying not only porn, but other material deemed objectionable by just about anyone. These days you cannot use medical terminology without offending someone. Congress would start mandating that all objectionable material be moved to .xxx and they would likely be the body that creates the rules by which objectionable material is classified, WebMD would soon have to be moved to .xxx because they extensively use the words vagina and penis.

Re:Who decides (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18543487)

EEEKK!! you said vagina!

(runs away screaming)

Yeah right (2, Insightful)

bytesex (112972) | about 7 years ago | (#18542245)

Because having .com .net .org and .museum means you're _not_ in the content regulation business.

Erecting XXX domain faces stiff opposition (5, Funny)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | about 7 years ago | (#18542261)

Erecting XXX domain faces stiff opposition

Re:Erecting XXX domain faces stiff opposition (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18542643)

C'mon, at least cite your source [arstechnica.com] .

Re:Erecting XXX domain faces stiff opposition (1)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | about 7 years ago | (#18546773)

And? I got my karma, thats how it works around here. You must be new here :) Watch and learn :)

OT: The gradual degradation of whois services (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18542277)

Aren't ICANN in a position to stop bullshit like this in whois:

Please visit www.eurid.eu for webbased whois.


No thanks. Instead please enjoy a complete block on all SMTP connections from machines with reverse DNS entries in the .eu zone. eurid are not alone in doing this.

My idea: Someone steal it... (1)

BobMcD (601576) | about 7 years ago | (#18542621)

Okay, if the TLD isn't the answer, and I'm pretty sure it isn't, what about this: If you serve content that you should reasonably know is age or otherwise restricted you are compelled to mark it out as such in your url. Failure to do so would impede your ability to legally accept US funds / bank with US partners / etc. If you are incorrect in your assumption you'd first be assessed a small fine, like a parking ticket. And just like parking tickets, you'd be expected to pay remotely, or show up in court. Failure to do either activates those laws. Also like auto-related laws, you should eventually expect to exhaust the court's tolerances with repeated violations of the law. Are we going to be able to put guys in China in jail with this? No. Can we make it very difficult for them to, say, process a credit card transaction with a reputible vendor? Yes. Come on Slashdot, poke some holes in this! I know you want to...

The interweb police (2, Insightful)

Grashnak (1003791) | about 7 years ago | (#18543021)

Um, so who gets to decide what should be age restricted? What age should it be? Why should I submit my content to the demands of your arbitrary rules? Who exactly is going to US banks not to do business with a website that refuses to participate in this scheme? And of course, who gets to decide what kind of content should be age restricted? I, for example, think that no one under the age of 95 should be exposed to websites promoting crackpot extremist christian views like intelligent design. Can we add that to your list? Enquiring minds wanna know.

Re:The interweb police (1)

BobMcD (601576) | about 7 years ago | (#18546347)

Age-based restriction of content is not the issue here. It exists, and has existed for a LONG period of time. It isn't going anywhere. There is no need to change this structure to deal with this issue.

Individuals are free to determine whether or not they feel they should abide by the laws of a given jurisdiction. Likewise, the authorities in power over those jurisdictions are free to pursue those they deem to be offenders with the powers they have been granted. Again this is how 'things are' and is not likely to change any time soon. We do not need to reinvent the authority systems that are already in place.

US banks fall into that same category as the individuals above. We do not have to invent a system of banking regulation. One already exists. Simply use the existing system.

Should your platform obtain the necessary political support to pass said notion into law, then yes you get to decide. It is, in fact, possible to change the body of law a government serves under.

Satisfied?

My question for you: Why, simply because this is internet-related, does it require a unique set of laws? Can we not simply adapt what we have been using? If there are inherent flaws in what we are using, why does the internet necessarily require we change them?

To use a specific example: If you feel that restricting content by age is a problem on the internet, why is it not a problem in print, film, etc?

I wish more people would 'get' this...

RFC 3675 (2, Informative)

Kevin DeGraaf (220791) | about 7 years ago | (#18542821)

``Periodically there are proposals to mandate the use of a special top level name or an IP address bit to flag "adult" or "unsafe" material or the like. This document explains why this is an ill considered idea from the legal, philosophical, and particularly, the technical points of view.''

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt [ietf.org]

YOU FaIL IT!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18543065)

what we've known bombshhel hit

Time to stop flogging this dead horse (1)

ribuck (943217) | about 7 years ago | (#18543123)

It's about time to stop flogging this dead horse.

Now, do I put that comment on www.blog.bestiality, www.blog.necrophilia, or www.blog.sado-masichism? Life would perhaps be easier with www.blog.xxx

I'm for it (1)

bytesex (112972) | about 7 years ago | (#18543421)

I'm for it - if only because it's worth the experiment. Anxieties over prejudices from US lawmakers or some such don't mean much to me. I'm not from the US and I very much doubt that even those that _are_ from the US can do much more than express those anxieties. Nobody can prove anything. Besides that, the reasons given by ICANN are bogus. 'Not in the content-business' ? We're talking about the same organisation that sanctioned '.museum' ?! And even if porn were regulated in there, it would take _years_ for the lawsuits to dry up, by which time '.xxx' would have found a natural place. I'd say: give it a chance. Who cares.

Re:I'm for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18543567)

But the crux of the issue is not the legislative speculation - it is that .XXX was proposed to make ICM very, very rich.
Anyone involved in the industry, or with a trademark to protect is opposed to the plan.

The inverse always seemed more likely to work (4, Insightful)

billtom (126004) | about 7 years ago | (#18543517)

The inverse (a domain exclusively for child appropriate sites) always seemed much more practical and effective to me. Let's call it .kids.

Let's put it this way, if you were starting a club, would you A) make the club undesirable for people to come to and then try to force them into it, or B) make the club a place where people wanted to be and then only allow in the people you wanted.

Well, .xxx is that undesirable club that you have to force people in to. The pornographers don't want to be in it because they know that it will get filtered out at a lot of places. So it cuts into their business.

But a .kids domain, is the place where everyone who produces child appropriate material will want to be because they know that a lot of parents will filter out everything but .kids. So you set up .kids and put in place a gatekeeper who monitors to make sure that only the material you want is in it.

Of course, the companies pushing .xxx want to run .xxx and not .kids because running .kids will be a lot more work (with the content monitoring and all) so they won't make as much profit.

And the moral crusaders prefer .xxx to .kids because their ultimate goal isn't just to prevent children from seeing pornography. Their goal is to prevent you from having any access to pornography. And that will be easier if it is all in one place.

Now, that "gatekeeper who monitors" bit about .kids will admittedly be challenging (I would suggest putting librarians in charge of that, they have experience with classifying material and setting up child-appropriate sections). But it won't be that challenging because companies would have a very strong incentive to follow the rules. So isn't .kids a much better idea?

(If you're really going to pursue porn filtering at the network infrastructure level, that is. Personally I think the whole idea is stupid. I'm just saying that if you're going to do it, isn't .kids better.)

Why label adult content (1, Redundant)

gillbates (106458) | about 7 years ago | (#18543587)

If the goal is to protect children?

Rather than argue over what is and what isn't pornography, why not just setup a .kids domain which is explicitly for children?

That way, those seeking to register a .kids domain would have the onus of proving their material was appropriate for kids. (Not that this is difficult). With the .xxx domain, every .com .net .org, etc... site has the burden of proving they don't belong in the .xxx domain. But, if the opposite approach is taken, only those sites specifically meant for children will have the burden of proving their content appropriate for children, and we can leave the rest of the internet as is.

I'm not sure why politicians keep on beating a dead horse when neither liberals nor conservatives want a .xxx domain. And "protecting the children" is as simple as giving them their own TLD, rather than trying to disrupt the internet as we know it.

Re:Why label adult content (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18545105)

Here here for .kids!

Good idea, put the burden of kid-content monitoring onto the people that already do so. There are all these 'nanny' services that filter/flag content sites; they, along with thousands and millions of volunteers from the faithful community can do the legwork.

Btw, is there an appropriate security analogy here: the 'trusted source' (via certificate) vs AV signature detection that is always out of it?

 

Re:Why label adult content (1)

spyrral (162842) | about 7 years ago | (#18545575)

The first thing I would do if a .kids domain was created is set up a site about evolution and natural selection targeted at improving children's understanding of these basic principals of biology.

I feel that this content is entirely "appropriate for kids". Do you think everyone would agree with that statement?

Re:Why label adult content (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18546281)

Well, I think they would object to using the word principals where principles was intended.

Will this matter under IPv6? (1)

mmell (832646) | about 7 years ago | (#18543657)

DNS is a three-decade old kludge. A good one, mind, but a kludge nonetheless.

Looked at the way DNS handles reverse lookups lately? Not horrible, but a kludge.

As long as the world will soon render IPv4 obsolete (despite tremendous opposition), I can't see DNS lasting too much longer. A decade, tops - probably less.

I don't even see DNS living too long within private IPv4 networks after (if) IPv6 becomes the standard. Who wants to preserve an obsolete kludge like DNS? It'll end up going the way of sendmail and uucp, IMHO. Still there, still operational, still usable - but who (except for some COBOL programmers) would want to maintain it?

ICANN SUCKS! (0)

PortHaven (242123) | about 7 years ago | (#18543733)

Sorry, but ICANN just sucks. I mean it's one of the domains that is most desired by a great many of users. They refuse. No, it's not censorship. It's zoning and marketing.

It would simply create a "redlight district" on the web. That doesn't mean porn wouldn't exist anywhere. Just as strip bars and what not exist outside of redlight districts. However, most such entities will locate in a red light district so that they can be more easily found. (And yes, more easily avoided.)

I'd wager $100 bucks the ICANN voters got a nice bit of cash under-the-table from several of the major porn industry.

Of course, where as a large portion of the the people want and .xxx domain. We get crud like .museum instead. !@#$%

Beware this ploy (2, Interesting)

Jerf (17166) | about 7 years ago | (#18543837)

In general, beware this manipulation of a democratic process; it happens on national scales, too. Take a close vote and just keep voting on it until the resolution passes. Then, once it passes, generally you don't have to vote on it again.

Due to the nature of random processes, even the exact same population that has the exact same opinions will have different voting outcomes on each vote. Now, if you take just one vote on an issue, it works out in the end; some things get overvoted, some things get undervoted, some things are enacted that "shouldn't" be and some things aren't enacted that "should" be. (Also, it's really hard to know which is which, so resist the temptation to point to your favorite close election and hold it up as an example; you can't prove that the election was 51% instead of 49%, it may well have been 51% instead of 54%.)

By holding votes over and over again, and taking it if it passes even once, you secretly lower the pass threshold. Add in some simple, traditional games for keeping certain groups out (like polling times or other things) and you can muck with another couple of percentage points, and you can keep trying until you get it right.

Unfortunately, there's no real way to prevent this; people simply need to be aware on some level that this is cheating. .XXX has lost. Put it away for a decent time period before trying to ram it through again.

Why not make it optional? (1)

prshaw (712950) | about 7 years ago | (#18544199)

Allow the xxx domains, but don't require that it is porn. If someone wants to put their site they can, if not the rules are the same for all the other domains. I think a lot of adult content sites would move there for the promotional value.

After seeing what sex.com sold for, I would want to have it just to sell sex.xxx, or maybe se.xxx would be worth more. Either way, whoever gets it would make a killing.

Re:Why not make it optional? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18544517)

Well of course it would be optional to begin with, then some misinformed lawmaker would try to pass legislation. An argument that domain prospectors and registrars may make some $dollar doesn't justify an additional TLD. PICS is useful for classifying content, DNS is not and those that really want .xxx are free to use alternate roots if they so desire.

Could we possibly get better ICRA support? (1)

Eccles (932) | about 7 years ago | (#18544435)

A far better answer than a single classification (XXX or not XXX) is a system like ICRA, with its self-reporting and multiple parameters. The problem for me as a parent, though, is that there's not a built-in system for using it in most OS/browser combinations. Or is there? Is there a way to use ICRA cleanly with Macs or Windows, esp. without having to buy some piece of software for all of my various machines?

It's about time. (1)

Phoenix Rising (28955) | about 7 years ago | (#18544703)

The debate over the .xxx domain should have died years ago. If you're really anal about protecting children, the .kids domain idea is a much better prospect.

ICANN hasn't done enough in being a domain name regulator, IMHO. What's the purpose of a TLD if it doesn't really mean anything? If .orgs aren't non-commercial organizations, and .nets aren't network-related, then why bother? The only domains that are reasonably well-regulated right now are the various governmental domains, plus .edu.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...