Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Technology

Pressure Mounts On ICANN To Approve .xxx Domain 372

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the mounts-get-it-hah-hah dept.
An anonymous reader writes "An application for the.xxx domain was first submitted six years ago. ICANN approved the application in 2005, and entered into an agreement with ICM Registry regarding technical and commercial terms. However, ICANN reversed its decision in March 2007. An independent review panel was called to look into why ICANN had changed its mind, and concluded that the body had been under pressure from the US government. Now the registry that submitted that application, ICM Registry, is pushing for .xxx to be approved. The company has argued that the .xxx internet domain should be approved for porn site use, allowing parents and businesses to easily configure browsers or filters to automatically block sites that carry the domain."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pressure Mounts On ICANN To Approve .xxx Domain

Comments Filter:
  • Can anyone tell me why someone wouldn't want the .xxx domain to happen? What possible downside is there to it?

    • Re:Yay ignorance. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dyinobal (1427207) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:17PM (#32099816)
      You don't have an excuse like 'oh I didn't know this was a porn site!' when caught. You can't just say you were searching Large fresh melons and accidentally found such a smutty site.
      • by TheKidWho (705796)

        Oh yeah, that's definetly it.

      • by AndrewNeo (979708)

        Or more legitimately, trying to go to the Python website, and finding out firsthand it's .org and not .com!

    • by eln (21727) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:19PM (#32099888) Homepage
      Because kneejerk Puritans would go crazy because it would look like someone was actually condoning porn, or at least recognizing its right to exist. We can't have that sort of thing, especially not in America where we practice our bizarre fetishes behind closed doors while condemning anyone who shares them. The only acceptable methods of sexual gratification are intercourse for the purpose of bearing children and the occasional leaked celebrity sex tape.
      • Re:Yay ignorance. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Locke2005 (849178) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:30PM (#32100086)
        Perhaps the Puritans (and pedophile priests) are on to something here... maybe sex really is a lot more fun if you feel guilty about it, and have to keep it a secret! There is something very attractive about taboo behavior, particularly to adolescents.
        • Re:Yay ignorance. (Score:4, Informative)

          by MostAwesomeDude (980382) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @03:15PM (#32102986) Homepage

          I'm sure I'm going to lose karma for this...

          Sexual response is conditionable. That's the entire basis of a fetish. As an example, let's say a young woman is told, repeatedly, over the course of her adolescence, that sex is shameful and embarrassing. She should be highly embarrassed whenever she thinks about anything sexual. She hears the word, "penis," and is mortified and ashamed. Now, since she can't separate the ideas of shame and sex, shame becomes sexy. When she gets embarrassed, she also gets aroused.

      • Re:Yay ignorance. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MWoody (222806) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:55PM (#32100610)

        How did your post hit +5? You've missed the point ENTIRELY. The reason the domain is a bad idea is because once you've set off a designation for "porn," the next logical steps for the puritanical minority are clear:

          - demand that ALL sites with pornographic content be stored under the XXX domain. "The pornographic industry can either self-regulate using the tools we've given them or the government will have to step in and do it FOR them. You don't want that, do you?"
          - demand that all work/government/public/houses-with-children computers hard-filter out XXX. "After all, it's explicitly for porn! What, do you want your kids reading porn? This just makes sense!"
          - demand that any site with nudity be classified as "pornographic." Art, medical textbooks, pictures of the diagrams included with the space probe, whatever. "Adults on their own time can access these materials just fine. It's not hard to get around these things on a personal computer. If you need to see them at work, ask for a special exception."
          - bad language and violence are moved into the designation. "We have an opportunity here to create a kid-safe Internet. We're not censoring these things, of course; we're just classifying them!"
          - multiple heavily-conservative foreign nations ban the XXX domain entirely. "We don't feel this sort of content is appropriate for the mental well-being of our constituents. In the name of their safety, the People will block the people from viewing them."
          - major websites begin to heavily censor their content to avoid being banned in entire countries and inaccessible from most terminals. "It's just a few pages cut. When we're only accessible to 10% of the computers out there, our ad revenue no longer supports the site."
          - any and all content that in any way offends anyone or doesn't immediately appeal to the international lowest common denominator of "good taste" is relegated to a tiny, much-maligned red light district of the Internet.

        The XXX domain is scary because it's essentially the beginning of an attempt to make the Internet look like broadcast television, only worse.

        • Re:Yay ignorance. (Score:5, Informative)

          by eln (21727) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @01:20PM (#32101088) Homepage
          That's one hell of a slippery slope you're sliding down there. In any case, as far as who pressured ICANN to reject the domain and why, you're just flat-out wrong:

          After the second .xxx proposal was approved in 2005, the Family Research Council (FRC) mobilized its forces in an all-out crusade. Claiming that the creation of a .xxx TLD would allow pornographers to "expand their evil empires on the Internet," the FRC urged its supporters to express opposition to the proposal. The Department of Commerce alone received nearly 6,000 letters expressing concern on the subject. The Department of Commerce eventually requested that ICANN spend more time considering the implications of the proposal before reaching a conclusion.

          (source [arstechnica.com])

          While the porn industry also opposed it for other reasons, the ones that actually caused ICANN to reverse it were the Puritanical minority.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by buback (144189)
      unless the government forces porn sites to use .xxx, it won't make much difference. Sure, a porn site might get a .xxx domain, but they'll also get the .com because they sure as hell don't want to prevent 95% of their customers from viewing their site.
      • And to make it even more complex if this comes in I plan to buy a .xxx domain and host nothing but non-pornographic political material.

        • by TheLink (130905)
          That's so inconsiderate, it makes it harder to search for pornographic political material. Think of the people who would want to do Google searches of the form: site:xxx intern

          Same for other niche xxx interests :).

          So I can understand technical reasons for the TLD xxx (not from the porn blocking POV which is silly, but from the porn finding POV ;) ).

          In contrast I don't see good technical reasons for .biz and .info. But the ICANN still approved those.
        • Isn't 'xxx' what they put on bottles of moonshine in cartoons? I wonder how quickly 'moonshine.xxx' will be registered.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MBGMorden (803437)

        Easy fix to that (at least for sites willing to set it up): for any .com site if there is a corresponding .xxx version of the domain with the same SSL Certificate, then block access accordingly (I'm talking filters that are voluntarily setup here, as in by parents - not advocating any mandatory filtering).

        Over time though I think porn sites would start to migrate to .xxx as people got used to it being over there. Adult businesses don't typically mind being separated from mainstream stuff - the people who w

    • Playing devil's advocate, one could envision an evolution into a system where websites are required to maintain certain censorship standards in order to publish on common TLDs. Slashdot, for instance, doesn't censor, so it would have to have stick up an "I am over 18" splash page on slashdot.org that would link to slashdot.xxx, or slashdot.pg13, or whatever.
      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        These guys are definitely the devil's advocates; but http://www.cp80.org/ [cp80.org] is a creepy pressure group, largely composed of slimy mormons(some of them with SCO ties...), advocating a very similar scheme. Everything on port 80 would have to be PG, with material that makes republican jesus cry relegated to other ports for easy blocking.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mwvdlee (775178)

          Wow... those guys have the BEST slogan EVER!

          "If a child looked at 1 pornographic web page every 10 seconds, he would be 546.787 years old when he finished looking at all the internet porn that exists today".

          Don't worry, that child will never live to be 546.787 years old. If he's lucky he'll only make it to 109. And when he's about 21, he's allowed to watch any porn he likes. So about 99.996% of porn isn't hurting the child. Lets just get rid of that 0.004% then.

          If the child looked at a porn page every 10 se

      • by Itninja (937614)

        Slashdot, for instance, doesn't censor

        Unless, of course, they get threatened with lawsuit [slashdot.org] by a big scary religion/business.

    • by jandrese (485)
      The reasoning I heard at the time was that they didn't want to create a "red light district on the internet".

      Yeah, it didn't make any sense to me either.
    • by l2718 (514756) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:36PM (#32100194)

      Can anyone tell me why someone wouldn't want the .xxx domain to happen? What possible downside is there to it?

      Because the next thing you know there will be government rules requiring certain content to only be located at .xxx, depending on the whims of the reigning censor-in-chief. Also, because companies will register this in addition to their .com address rather than instead of it (would NBC give up NBC.com if we have NBC.tv ?)

      • by Itninja (937614)
        I imagine they would be required to have a redirect so the final landing page would be .xxx. It would make it a lot easier for parents to filter porn home or public libraries to filter it in the kiddie book section. But, like others have already said, who gets to decide on what gets the XXX? What about those nudism advocacy sites that are loaded with naked people? What about viewing Flickr with the 'family filter' disabled?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by denbesten (63853)

      > Can anyone tell me why someone wouldn't want the .xxx domain to happen? What possible downside is there to it?

      Presuming your question is genuine....

      A TLD enforces a single global definition, but the definition of pornography is very much a local thing. For example, in some portions of the world (e.g. France), bare breasts are acceptable on the beach and in other portions of the world (e.g. Saudi Arabia), an uncovered face can be a crime. In the end, it is impossible to get global consensus.

      This is wh

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cgenman (325138)

      1. To a very traditional mind, an XXX domain name implies that it is OK to see pictures of boobies. It is implicit approval of the fad of this whole sex thing.

      2. To a less traditional mind, it is the first step along the line of censoring the boobies out of the internet. Immediately upon creation, all of the XXX domain names will be censored from basically every company on the planet. Home networks will probably remain uncensored at first, but who knows what parental moral outrage and very, very old exec

    • Re:Yay ignorance. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Schnapple (262314) <tomkidd@v i a t e x a s . c om> on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @01:01PM (#32100724) Homepage

      If I remember right from the last Slashdot discussion we had on this:

      1. Some organizations (mostly religious ones) don't want porn to exist at all. They pray (literally) for the day when it is legislated out of existence. a .xxx domain would legitimize it further than it already is.

      2. Many porn sites already have a large vested interest in their .com domains. They don't want to have to move to .xxx domains.

      3. The porn industry doesn't want some quick/easy way to block them. Sure, you as a parent would like to just block www.*.xxx and be done with it but what if your ISP decides to do the same? Then you can't look at this no matter what. To say nothing of the false sense of security (i.e., just blocking www.*.xxx doesn't really block all porn)

      4. How would it be enforced? Anyone can have a .xxx domain? Does it have to be a porn site? Would porn sites have to move to .xxx domains instead of .com domains?

      5. Who decides what is porn? An example was given of a stunt to raise awareness for breast cancer or something wherein a thousand women got naked and laid down to pose in a large shape. The photo was carried on a lot of news sites, including Yahoo. Would it be considered porn? It's not video footage of people having sex but it is a photo of a thousand naked women. If it is considered porn, would Yahoo have to host it on www.yahoo.xxx instead of www.yahoo.com? And wouldn't Yahoo get into a shitstorm by even registering www.yahoo.xxx in the first place?

      Basically when both the porn industry and the religious movements are agreeing on something, you know it's messed up. Yeah, on its surface it's not a bad idea, it's just one not thought through very well.

    • Re:Yay ignorance. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Nuskrad (740518) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @01:06PM (#32100810)
      Can anyone tell me why someone wouldn't want the .xxx domain to happen? What possible downside is there to it?

      RFC 3675 [ietf.org] covers it pretty well
    • Define pornography in a way that includes everything anyone would consider porn, but doesn't include anything that anyone wouldn't consider porn. Now that you realize how blatantly impossible that really is, consider it for a worldwide audience and not just US.

      If you make use of it voluntary, then what function does it actually perform beyond opening additional namespace beyond what is already available in .com, .biz, .info, etc?

      If you make use of it mandatory, who's definition of porn do we use? Are you

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Entropius (188861)

      Because typically TLD's are reserved for descriptions of the status of the hosting entity, not the content. .uk tells me a site is in Britain. .org tells me they're a nonprofit.

    • by wjousts (1529427)
      Because if there is an .xxx domain the internet will quickly fill with porn. Unlike the totally pure and kid safe environment of the internet now!
  • Heh (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Mounts.

  • by winkydink (650484) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:17PM (#32099814) Homepage Journal

    Constantly creating new domains to force brand owners to pony up more money for new TLD's thereby lining the pockets of ICANN's stakeholders (registries and registrars) and further funding their own existence.

  • by Todd Knarr (15451) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:17PM (#32099820) Homepage

    Yes, because this will work just as well as RFC 3514 - The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header [ietf.org].

  • This is stupid. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CondeZer0 (158969) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:21PM (#32099924) Homepage

    > The company has argued that the .xxx internet domain should be approved for porn site use, allowing parents and businesses to easily configure browsers or filters to automatically block sites that carry the domain."

    This is a ridiculous idea, there are mountains of porn all over the web, and specially if it is known they are going to be filtered .xxx domains will constitute an insignificant percentage of the porn online, and I'm certain all of it will be available outside the .xxx namespace.

    Yet one more aspect of the domain system that turns out to be a scam, what a surprise!

    And ICANN are the first to be a bunch of corrupt incompetent idiots.

    The net needs badly an alternative DNS root that is run competently and honestly.

    • by mconeone (765767)
      Why is this ridiculous? Just because they aren't blocking every porn site doesn't mean it isn't a simple way to block a bunch of them at once.

      An analogy: "why have marijuana-sniffing dogs in airports since it can be grown in the US?"
      • by jandrese (485)
        I'm thinking that a filter would do a reverse DNS lookup on every connection.
        • by amorsen (7485)

          I'm thinking that a filter would do a reverse DNS lookup on every connection.

          You have WAY too much faith in reverse lookup. Reverse lookup on the open Internet is a way to say "Yes, I really want to run a mail server on this IP, so please don't block my mail". Apart from that it's used to make troubleshooting with traceroute slightly easier, but all the juicy stuff is in txt records or stored in whois anyway.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by buback (144189)

        You obviously have NO idea how big the marijuana black market is in the US. It's not like having dogs at the airport is stopping the people who want weed from getting it.

        Your analogy is actually pretty apt. Having a .xxx TLD would be as effective at preventing porn viewing as drug dogs at the airport are at stemming the flow of marijuana.

        • by Entropius (188861)

          Less effective.

          To make weed you have to grow it.

          To make porn you just have to take your damn clothes off.

      • Why is this ridiculous? Just because they aren't blocking every porn site doesn't mean it isn't a simple way to block a bunch of them at once.

        ...where by "a bunch" you mean "none". What webmaster in their right mind is going to make their whole site that trivially simple to block? You seem to be under the impression that the porn industry is run by naive morons.

    • Except there are a lot of Legit Adult Entertainment companies as well who would welcome this. They want the business but they don't want the legal hassle for operations. If you site can be blocked easily then it just may be good as you don't get hassled for trying to attract kids to your site. As there are easy ways for parents to block it.

    • by Sir_Sri (199544)

      ya but if you're a legitimate porn company you don't want your product showing up legally from you on school computers or in a place that will get your customers fired. If someone has to pirate your product to view it on school/library/work computers that's fine - you aren't going to get in trouble over it (it's not our fault he was looking at our stuff without our permission basically).

      Sure, lots of other sites will still make it available, but if you're a legitimate porn seller I would expect you to want

  • The company has argued that the .xxx internet domain should be approved for porn site use, allowing parents and businesses to easily configure browsers or filters to automatically block sites that carry the domain. Right... 'cause children and employees obviously aren't capable of typing in an IP address that doesn't need to do a DNS lookup!
    • by bami (1376931)

      That would fail hard in the case of virtual servers or one host serving multiple domains relying on the host portion of the header of a http request.

      • by Locke2005 (849178)
        Valid point, this would fail with name based virtual hosting [wikipedia.org], but not IP based virtual hosting. I'm sure a lot of porn sites are using virtual hosting, but how many porn sites are actually using name based virtual hosting?
  • Nothing. Not one damn thing.

    What good does filtering out .xxx sites do for sites that reside under every other TLD on the 'net?

    How about the ones that purposely evade filters? Drop malware payloads? Engage in a host of other nefarious behaviors?

    This is a useless exercise in time-wasting par excellence.

    • by mconeone (765767) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:36PM (#32100190)
      Agreed. But you have technically-ignorant people from both sides of the argument thinking it will do something. It would be nice if both sides were informed that:

      1. It could never be mandatory, and if it was made so it would be unenforceable
      2. If it wasn't mandatory, few if any sites would actually register to avoid being TLD-blocked.
    • by timeOday (582209)
      By the same argument, TLD's themselves are simply a waste of 4 characters in every URL. I would rather just open up TLD's for registration by anybody. The domain name for "slashdot" is then "slashdot", not "slashdot.org". The ".org" serves no purpose. My personal domain name is a .net, and I'm not an ISP.
  • Headline (Score:4, Funny)

    by just_another_sean (919159) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:27PM (#32100030) Homepage Journal

    Was it really necessary to use the words pressure and mount in this headline? The subject matter is provocative enough on its own!

  • by Shompol (1690084) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:30PM (#32100072)
    under pressure from the US government....
  • Problem is.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Capt James McCarthy (860294) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:31PM (#32100098) Journal

    One person's pr0n is another person's art.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:32PM (#32100118) Journal
    The lesson of Port 80 and firewalls. If the "feature" of .xxx is easy filtering, internet smut peddlers are going to be deeply apathetic about adopting it. What rational person makes their product harder for their customers to get to?

    At best, if the prices are low enough, smut peddlers with high quality .coms and .nets will be forced to pick up .xxxs to match, to protect themselves from squatters, and peddlers with lousy URLs will pick up .xxxs in the hopes of grabbing some extra traffic. For the most part, though, porn sellers have no particular incentive to make themselves trivial to block.(They do have an incentive, except for the real bottom feeders, to not be perceived as resisting blocking software, or threatening innnocent children, because that could inspire a real backlash; but adults sneaking past imperfect filters are just fine by them.)

    Its analogous to the number of oddball applications and protocols that have moved toward port 80, by default or as a common option, because that port is generally minimally restricted compared to the more special-purpose ports.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by value_added (719364)

      internet smut peddlers

      Has a nice ring, that one. Good luck with it.

      Me, I prefer

          Purveyors of Fine Adult Entertainment ...
              For the Gentleman with Discriminating Tastes

      The only smut I see being peddled is in the grocery checkout aisle. I'm told people enjoy reading it, and don't have a problem with the kids seeing it.

  • by BitZtream (692029) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:35PM (#32100172)

    I love America, I really do ... but god ... we can make complete asses of ourselves sometimes ... I mean on a whole new level ...

    The porn industry is saying:
    HEY! We want to make it REALLY easy for you to classify us so we don't bother you. We're giving you an instant 'adults only' part of the URL so you don't have to even think twice about it! We'll make it easy for you to avoid us and then we won't have to deal with your complaints and you won't have to deal with our sites! Everyone wins! We'll just stay over here in our corner and not bother anyone who doesn't come looking for us specifically!

    America says:
    No, we're rather make it hard to block you from our children who will be emotionally scared for life if they see tits and ass.

    Porn Industry:
    Emotionally scared? WTF, the first thing most babies see is their moms asshole, the second thing his her tits for breakfast ...

    America:
    Thats different ...

    Porn Industry: ...

    America:
    You're in contempt of court!

    Porn Industry:
    Oh fuck off, we'll just keep doing what we do and you idiots can continue to deal with it in an incredibly retarded way while we keep making a fortune off of you because you have some sort of retarded cultural thing that makes sex dirty and somehow different than every other normal type of social interaction.

    My question to my country:

    WHEN THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO STOP TREATING SEX AS SPECIAL?

    Its just sex for fucks sake. Everyone does it and our species has relied on it for longer than our species has actually existed! (Chick and the egg) Stop treating it as different. Stop teaching women to be so emotionally tied to their vaginas, its nothing more than a convenient hole for fucks sake. Stop treating the penis as though its the key to a mans life, it can be replaced with a $15 battery powered chunk of silicon that is more effective for every purpose except urination. (Vibrator for sexual pleasure, turkey baster to transfering sperm).

    Stop freaking make sex so taboo. Stop with this 'sex crimes' crap, thats as dumb as 'hate crimes'. STOP TREATING SEX AS SOMETHING TABOO AND IT WILL STOP BEING TABOO.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bami (1376931)

      You should try going to Europe.

      We got (uncovered) tits in billboard ads!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Stop treating women like sex objects.

      Incidentally, your basic argument, on the "bible belt moron" side is one that I have never, ever heard in my life. And I am someone who considers sex to be something that should be in marriage, and someone who thinks that the porn industry is immoral and highly degrading; first degrading to women, who are turned into sex objects simply to be used for pleasure, and secondly degrading to society, who turn sex into the end-goal of life.

      • by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @01:29PM (#32101308) Journal

        first degrading to women, who are turned into sex objects simply to be used for pleasure

        Unless they were forced into such a production, what's the problem here? If a consenting adult makes a choice to become a sex object I don't see why it's any of our business.

        who turn sex into the end-goal of life.

        Reproduction is the end-goal of all life on this blue marble. Sex goes hand in hand with that, at least for mammals....

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by clarkkent09 (1104833) *
        That is your opinion and fair enough unless you try to impose it on others through laws or other forms of force. I am just curious why people like you consider sex to be degrading to women but not to men, or at least more degrading to women than to men. Could you please explain it to me? It seems that you assume that women gain no pleasure from sex and are only enduring it in order to please men which makes me think that you don't understand women at all and shouldn't be in the business of "protecting" them
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nedlohs (1335013)

        and secondly degrading to society, who turn sex into the end-goal of life.

        Sex is the end-goal of life.

        Well reproduction is, but the sex part is pretty damn essential step.

        first degrading to women, who are turned into sex objects simply to be used for pleasure

        Whereas I think religion is degrading to all people, who are turned into idiots who believe in ridiculous fairy tails and rejoice in being slaves. But I don't try and stop churches from being easily identifiable as churches, and I don't want to try and ban people from believing in their magic stories.

    • by Locke2005 (849178)
      Stop freaking make sex so taboo. Right on! Anything that happens between a priest and an altar boy in the privacy of their own confessional should be their own business, and nobody else's!

      Stop teaching women to be so emotionally tied to their vaginas I'm not sure this is learned behavior... many have suggested that women are inherently wired that way.

      Stop treating the penis as though its the key to a mans life, it can be replaced with a... turkey baster to transfering sperm. When that turkey baster can
      • by EdIII (1114411)

        Do you prefer a fleshlight to a real woman?

        It does talk less......

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Shakrai (717556)

        When that turkey baster can actually produce sperm

        The penis doesn't produce sperm either, so what you'd really need is a pair of testicles attached to your turkey baster.... ;)

    • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @01:16PM (#32101014) Homepage Journal

      The porn industry is saying

      ...nothing like what you think it's saying. Here's what the CEO of an Australian adult industry said in a letter to ICANN [sexparty.org.au]:

      The Eros Association is the peak national organisation for the Australian Adult industry. We represent the majority of the Australian adult retail and on line industry and have done so since 1992.

      I am writing to express our opposition to the introduction of the TLD XXX. I attended the ICANN meeting in Wellington in 2006 and met with ICANN and GAC delegates to explain our opposition to the proposal. At that time we submitted letters from major on line businesses that also opposed the introduction of the new TLD.

      Our objections have not changed. There is no support from the Australian on line adult industry for the TLD XXX. I note that the ICM website states that they have support form the adult industry and free speech advocates. I am yet to find anyone.

      While it's fun and easy to blame stupid, uptight Americans - and even gives you a smidgin of Slashdot karma - the reality is that the people who would hypothetically be using the .xxx TLD have no interest in it and are actively opposed to it.

  • Fear it? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Thyamine (531612) <thyamine@oFREEBSDfdragons.com minus bsd> on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:44PM (#32100382) Homepage Journal
    A few people are saying that porn sites are going to be worried about being blocked. How much money do they make from the accidental viewings (ads potentially) vs people actively seeking out the sites and or signing up as members? It's not like I'm going to block .xxx at home and then be like 'WTF? Why can't I get to my porn?' The only people this would affect are those at jobs where it gets blocked (stop looking at work), or schools. At home do what you want. Block for your kids and not yourself.

    The only problem I see is that plenty of malware providers/etc will continue to do their thing and promote their sites as able to avoid the .xxx filters, so come see us, and oops now you are infected. Legitimate porn sites aren't going to suffer. Members will still come to them and pay their monthly fees.
  • No more TLDs! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Animats (122034) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @01:08PM (#32100862) Homepage

    We have too many TLDs already. Additional TLDs are just a racket for registrars. As Abacus wrote to ICANN [icann.org] when they applied for ".biz", ".fam", ".cool", and a few other TLDs back in 2000, "The more TLDs we are allowed to operate, and the better quality of those TLDs, the greater the total sales will be."

    ".biz" ended up as the "bad neighborhood" TLD. When you see a ".biz" domain, you visualize a storefront in a half-empty strip mall with trash in the parking lot. We have two vacant TLDs, ".aero" and ".museum". ".aero" is basically a collection of redirects from airport codes to the actual site. See JFK.aero [jfk.aero], etc., most of which were created by the promoters of .aero, not the airports.) The ".museum" TLD has so few domains that the entire list fits on one page. [index.museum] We have the redundant TLD, ".info". What was that for, anyway?

    All those TLDs could be closed to new registrations and phased out with no great loss.

    Porno belongs in ".com", with other commercial enterprises.

  • Why porn? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Entropius (188861) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @01:15PM (#32100980)

    Can somebody tell me why images of people having sex, or naked, unique among all categories of images, deserves a special classification?

    Why shouldn't images of people eating, or military propaganda, or lions killing buffalo, or even birds having sex, get special treatment? What is it about porn that makes everyone care so damn much?

  • People can start squatting .xxx domains that are common misspellings of porn stuff. It would work like so:

    Porn surfer: Ok, lemme check out www.clevelandsteemer.com. Hey, wait a sec.... this is a blog about crocheting. Ooo...doilies...

    Phase 3: profit!
  • Some of us recall that the idiots at ICANN decided some time ago that they will soon start selling TLDs themselves; at which point all management and responsibility goes out the window (what little remains of it anyways). If they don't establish .xxx and do something to manage it, someone else will (and that other person or group will make a lot more money out of it).
  • Idiots in Congress (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew&gmail,com> on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @01:45PM (#32101650) Homepage Journal

    It bothers me when I hear people in Congress oppose this, saying it endorses pornography and will create more of it. We need to keep the web "safe" for our children.

    They fail to realize that putting porn behind a TLD makes it easier to filter it out so children can't find it.

  • by bk2204 (310841) <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @02:00PM (#32101916) Homepage

    The problem here is that creating a .xxx domain is enumerating badness. Pornography is something that people want to contain and restrict. People working in the security field have known for a long time that enumerating badness is ineffective: someone can always find a way around it. It is trivial to come up with several ways around a mandate that porn be limited to .xxx.

    The secure solution is to enumerate goodness; that is, allow only certain specified things and block everything else. If people want to browse an Internet without porn, they should create a top-level domain that is "family-friendly." Basically, each application for a domain would be carefully vetted under some set of criteria and only unobjectionable content would be allowed. This, of course, would have a very small amount of content, but it would be fine for those with delicate sensibilities.

    The way that is being proposed (.xxx) is trivially circumventable.

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten

Working...