Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Technology

ICANN Likely Finally To Approve .xxx For Porn Sites 266

Posted by timothy
from the type-one-and-type-two-errors dept.
shmG writes with this from the International Business Times: "The company that oversees Web addresses is expected to give the go-ahead on Friday for the creation of a .xxx suffix for websites with pornographic content, company officials indicated on Thursday. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which oversees the Internet on behalf of the US government, has in the past resisted creating a .xxx generic domain name system akin to those for .com and .net."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ICANN Likely Finally To Approve .xxx For Porn Sites

Comments Filter:
  • by Ukab the Great (87152) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:55PM (#32683454)

    on fu.xxx

  • by oneiros27 (46144) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:56PM (#32683482) Homepage

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

    • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:12PM (#32683752)

      Well, the .xxx domain is probably pointless. The vast majority of adult sites aren't going to be moving so you still won't be able to easily filter based on that criteria. The doc you linked does mention a different idea that I could get behind though, establish a .kids which would be a semi-walled garden of child appropriate material. That allows the creating of a relatively safe space for children which would be relatively enforceable by knowledgeable parents without creating the privacy and legal concerns that everyone seems to have with a .xxx domain.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by audubon (577473)

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

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

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Ash-Fox (726320)

        When .xxx becomes available, I am going to start a U-rated picture colouring website on that tld.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by yeshuawatso (1774190)

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

      • by Hatta (162192) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @07:10PM (#32685142) Journal

        Well, the .xxx domain is probably pointless. The vast majority of adult sites aren't going to be moving so you still won't be able to easily filter based on that criteria.

        The .xxx domain definitely has a point. If porn sites don't move, you won't be able to filter them by domain. So, they will be forced to move by law, you know, for the children. That gives the government a legal cudgel it can use against anyone who hosts borderline material. This causes a chilling effect on healthy discussions of sexuality, advancing the agenda of the puritanical community.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jmorris42 (1458) *

          > If porn sites don't move, you won't be able to filter them by domain.

          Exactly. The law of unintended consequences. But in this case it isn't really unintended because a lot of people have been raising the alarm on the perfectly natural result creating an .xxx tld is going to have and the activists are sticking their fingers in their ears and humming really loud. By now they should realize what they are doing but apparently they are refusing to face reality. Idiots!

          This is going to become a nightmare

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by John Hasler (414242)

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

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

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Personally, I would think a fair number of adult sites would WANT to move to .xxx.
            I mean, obviously it will be banned at work, schools, libraries, so there will still be sites on .com for the people that are trying to grab that demographic, but if the majority of porn users are actually adults in their own homes LOOKING for porn, the .xxx domain would make it very easy to know where the porn is. And as a result the porn sites will move there to get more exposure to their best customers: people who want, ca
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by 1u3hr (530656)
              the .xxx domain would make it very easy to know where the porn is.

              So you think people will search for porn by typing random domain names ending in .xxx?

              I personally use Google to find porn the same as I find anything else. I don't really care what domain it's in Except that .xxx will be blocked on just about every access point except those who have decided to "opt out", and who in their right mind would put in writing that thy want access to porn domains? Fine if you're a single guy, not if you live wi

      • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @07:24PM (#32685264)
        For a while new porn sites will be registered at both .com and .xxx, and the existing sites will still probably be primarily .com (although they'll register .xxx for brand purity). As a filter it will be meaningless, and as a tool for censorship it won't work. Legitimate porn sites tend to not try to get around filtering right now anyway, so the free speech concerns seem overblown.

        However, it does offer value to both porn sites and internet users. First, it's a namespace that you always know is porn, so if you're looking for porn this can be a useful tool. Filtering these sites is as easy as it can get, and as mentioned before most porn sites don't try to get around filters anyway. Porn sites now have a way of identifying themselves more fully for customers and they don't have to compete for .com names.

        Most importantly in my mind, this could be the easiest way to get people weaned off of .com as the only tld. .gov is useful for a small subset of sites, .org can be useful for some sites (although they almost all try to get the .com as well), and .co.uk is the .com of Britain. If they introduce .xxx and it takes off, it'll be a big step forward in making more domain names viable, and I consider that to absolutely be a good thing.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by EdIII (1114411)

          it'll be a big step forward in making more domain names viable, and I consider that to absolutely be a good thing.

          Nooo, the exact same amount of domain names will be available. www.porn.com will, as quickly as possible, purchase www.porn.xxx. However, also as quickly as possible, www.dell.com will purchase www.dell.xxx.

          Every single business I know, including my own, will be picking up the .xxx domain. Do you really think Google is going to allow *anyone* else to own www.google.xxx? Of course not. I am n

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 24, 2010 @08:02PM (#32685586)

        What did children do to be locked up in a prison of mind? Or rather, do you want to teach them that they should expect such?

        Because, sorry, porn does not even interest kids before puberty (really, they simply don't care - no threat of lifelong damage or anything, its just that). And after puberty I think you should kind of have to realize it is a human urge that cannot be suppressed entirely without negative effects. Even more iportantly that at the time of puberty they are definitely getting some of the last opportunities on the path to maturity of mind.
        If you prevent them from learning about what's REALLY out there in the world (wikipedia, news, violence, porn and prostitution, inequality and unfairness...) and even to feel hurt by it, they may never in their life manage to deal with it.

    • by mea37 (1201159)

      Yeah, just because it's an RFC doesn't make it accurate.

      The legal/philosophical issues are debatable; the author does a fair job of making his opinion on the matter clear, but I can't say I found it all that compelling.

      When the author tries to lay out technical issues, though, it just gets laughable:

      He mentions that there are thousands of languages and questions which one to use in choosing the label... well, how about the same one from which the other TLD abbreviations are taken? Do you think .com is mean

    • by deinol (210478) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @06:13PM (#32684626) Homepage

      There's a big difference between trying to force all porn sites to use .xxx (or any other specific term) and allowing people who wish to buy .xxx domains to do so.

      In other news, who cares?

  • Obvious... (Score:5, Funny)

    by brian0918 (638904) <brian0918&gmail,com> on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:57PM (#32683488)
    ICANN HAZ PORN?
  • Finally (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Hopefully, this is a sign that our policies are not dictated by the "Think of the children" crowd.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kitkoan (1719118)

      Hopefully, this is a sign that our policies are not dictated by the "Think of the children" crowd.

      To be honest, this could easily be made to be pro 'think of the children'. If suddenly it is designed that porn sites are to have the .xxx domain name then you can easily put on a very basic (even just OS Parental Controls) to just refuse to load .xxx domains. Its 'thinking of the children' as suddenly porn sites are easily identifiable and blockable since they all (in theory) be .xxx domains (like how most governments sites are expected to be .gov)

      • Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BobMcD (601576) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:25PM (#32683922)

        Hopefully, this is a sign that our policies are not dictated by the "Think of the children" crowd.

        To be honest, this could easily be made to be pro 'think of the children'. If suddenly it is designed that porn sites are to have the .xxx domain name then you can easily put on a very basic (even just OS Parental Controls) to just refuse to load .xxx domains. Its 'thinking of the children' as suddenly porn sites are easily identifiable and blockable since they all (in theory) be .xxx domains (like how most governments sites are expected to be .gov)

        And I'd think that even the porn people would be on board with this. The kinds of people that want porn blocked in certain situations are the same kinds that are willing to pay for it in other, more private situations.

        • And I'd think that even the porn people would be on board with this. The kinds of people that want porn blocked in certain situations are the same kinds that are willing to pay for it in other, more private situations.

          Like bathroom stalls in airports?

    • ...when it comes to sex, they think of children.
  • i got dibs (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    on se.xxx
    and sex.xxx

    and goatse.xxx

  • How long till slashdot.xxx is registered and what will it link me to?

    In all seriousness though, Will this cause a massive surge of porn hosts buying domain names that exist in .com or .net for .xxx (like google.xxx) so that people curious if it exists will stumble upon their porn site?

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)

      by snowraver1 (1052510) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:04PM (#32683622)
      If google.xxx is what I think it would be, it could perhaps be the best website on the Internet.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LostCluster (625375) *

      The owners of Slashdot.org would most likely serve a C&D on whomever registers slashdot.xxx for the clear trademark violation. TLD owners like .TV and .CC used to brag about the major companies registering all their trademarks with them... when really all those companies were doing was making sure nobody else used their brands the wrong way.

      • Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Threni (635302) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:18PM (#32683832)

        Really you want a default null tld so Slashdot.org would just be slashdot. I don't care where a site is based, whether it's for profit or not. I want to just type:

        slashdot
        ubuntuforums
        bbc

        etc and not try and guess/remember whether they're: .com .net .org .co.uk .org.uk

        etc etc. The distinction is meaningless to me.

        • Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by BobMcD (601576) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:27PM (#32683954)

          Really you want a default null tld so Slashdot.org would just be slashdot. I don't care where a site is based, whether it's for profit or not. I want to just type:

          slashdot
          ubuntuforums
          bbc

          etc and not try and guess/remember whether they're: .com .net .org .co.uk .org.uk

          etc etc. The distinction is meaningless to me.

          The distinction doesn't exist solely to help you mentally organize sites. It exists because DNS reads from right to left, and it has to start somewhere. Otherwise there would be no way to organize them.

        • by vk2 (753291)
          Really? Go Tell Barry - http://www.whitehouse.org/ [whitehouse.org] [NSFW Alert!!]

          Really you want a default null tld so Slashdot.org would just be slashdot. I don't care where a site is based, whether it's for profit or not. I want to just type:

          slashdot ubuntuforums bbc

          etc and not try and guess/remember whether they're: .com .net .org .co.uk .org.uk

          etc etc. The distinction is meaningless to me.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Knoeki (1149769)
          You can do that in firefox. Type a site like that in the addressbar. It'll use the google "I'm feeling lucky" thing 9 out of 10 times. The other time it'll show you search results.
        • Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)

          by RichardJenkins (1362463) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:53PM (#32684358)

          Have you tried just typing those words into your browser?

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

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

        • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hackstraw (262471) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @07:04PM (#32685082)

          I've been saying this for years. Most people don't know about the different TLDs, and because of that most popular sites buy up the other TLDs that match their domainname to prevent people from squatting there, and they redirect (or not) the traffic to their "proper" TLD. Take for example http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.com/ [slashdot.com] http://slashdot.net./ [slashdot.net.]

          I've always held that country code TLDs are of value. It sucks to do some online searching to buy something and end up at a .com address that is in the UK.

          Actually, I don't dare type a URL in my location bar that is not already in my history and/or bookmarks that is automatically completed. Too dangerous if you misspell the sucker. Google is the real DNS provider. Sometimes names aren't what they would think they are either. EG, its not bmw.com, its bmwusa.com.

          To belabor this stupid point further. WTF is up with .name and .museum ? TLDs have digressed from their original goal. To simplify and classify things. I mean, how is slashdot.org really a .org anymore? Its a commercial entity. What was ever the point of .net? .biz? And then countries sell off their TLDs like .to, .fm, and .tv, and those are rarely used.

          Google (or similar) is the authoritative TLD master, the rest is just novelty.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by tabrisnet (722816)

            First, .net had a very particular meaning once upon a time. It meant you were an ISP or other network service provider (Google might even qualify). This is to be separate from IBM which sells stuff, but does not provide network services (that I can think of. and if you want to be a PITA, try Pepsi or Coca-Cola).

            Meanwhile, I think that perhaps we should have per-country DNS search paths, such that if you try to do www.google.com, and you're in the UK, you go to www.google.com.uk. (this would break with .co,

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jopsen (885607)
      Hmm...
      I suppose we should buy up .xxx domains matching our current domains and/or name and make them redirect...
      That might be pretty fun too... Or maybe just really creepy... Can't decide which it is...
  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:59PM (#32683528)

    With the new rules letting any company/group create a TLD if they've got the money and infrastructure, it's only a matter of time before we'll be going to Sprite.coca-cola and BigMac.McD.... so why not give the sex operators a red light district that's easily blockable. Sure, it won't block 100% of porn, but it's one rule that can block 100% porn with no false positives.

    • by compro01 (777531) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:07PM (#32683690)

      but it's one rule that can block 100% porn with no false positives.

      Only if you make the assumption that your definition of porn matches their definition of porn.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by soundguy (415780)
        Exactly. Who gets to define "porn"? Larry Flint? Fred Phelps? The Pope?
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Pharmboy (216950)

          Exactly. Who gets to define "porn"? Larry Flint? Fred Phelps? The Pope?

          Probably the same group that gets to decide what is a .org or a .net or a .com is. All these comparisons to "burger.McD" really don't hold water. Porn is not only the *reason* that internet access is affordable (early adopters paid the high access rates to pave the way) but it is still a large portion of the traffic on the net, including much of the bittorrent traffic.

          I wouldn't get too excited, most porn sites won't switch to a .xxx s

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by LostCluster (625375) *

            The group that decides whether you get a .com, .net. or .org is... whomever's paying and taking the registration fee. Many for-profit groups register all three for protection of their brand. Other domains, like most geography-specific domains require you have a tie to that area, although some lucky countries got American-valuable domains like .TO, .TV, and .AM and opted to just collect the fee. Government domains like .gov and .mil are closely regulated for official US Government use and publications.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by value_added (719364)

          Exactly. Who gets to define "porn"? Larry Flint? Fred Phelps? The Pope?

          I believe it's defined in the context of "community standards", and then, presumably using a "I know it when I see it" test.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Itninja (937614)
        There is really only one definition of sexual pornography. Any media intended to arouse one sexually.
      • Well, okay... 100% of those who chose to self-identify as porn.

      • If you're going to block .xxx, you probably have a very broad definition of porn.

        A company, for instance, will want to block anything that could result in a lawsuit. That means blocking anything that someone might find tasteless.

        Schools, with their "think of the children" mentality, have a similar attitude. They'll block anything that might not be appropriate for children. Bonus: medical sites probably won't fall under .xxx, so learning about breast cancer is still fine.

        The very conservative/religious sh

  • by Adrian Lopez (2615) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:00PM (#32683548) Homepage

    I hope this doesn't encourage would-be censors to restrict the kinds of content allowed in non-xxx domains. Not all content fits neatly into an XXX designation, and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains. Having an XXX domain has always struck me as either pointless (insofar as XXX content might continue to be hosted on non-XXX domains) or otherwise a really bad idea (insofar as no XXX content may be allowed outside of XXX domains).

    • by gman003 (1693318)

      Since retroactive bans are generally looked down upon, sane countries wouldn't try to ban porn from non .xxx domains. Insane countries, like Iran or maybe even China, might give it a shot, but here's the thing:

      No government controls the Internet. America has the most influence, undoubtedly, but even they can't mandate something like that.

      Really, the most any government will do is block access to the entire .xxx TLD. Since those that would do so probably are already, the only real effect would be making cert

      • by compro01 (777531)

        That's all it will do. Make porn stand out as porn.

        Maybe, maybe not. Depends what trademark holders do/are allowed to do. What do you figure will be at, say, coca-cola.xxx or mcdonalds.xxx?

        • by gman003 (1693318) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @06:00PM (#32684460)

          Most likely, nothing. They'll probably just register the domain and leave it empty, or make it redirect to a .com. I just tried mcdonalds.tk, it loaded a blank page. By extension, they'll do the same to .xxx. So that will get blocked by a blanket ban, but it won't really affect anything. How often do you go to slashdot.com?

          I don't foresee many false positives. Besides a few puns like ro.xxx, I think anything in .xxx will be porn.

      • by PitaBred (632671)

        I'm disturbed by how easily you remember anime porn sites, yet still bookmarking it...

        • by gman003 (1693318)

          I used to be part of that community, and every month or so, someone would show up on the forums, asking how to patch FFVII to keep Aeris alive past Disc 1. For some reason that popped into my head when writing that comment. I don't even know if the site's still up.

    • The simple biggest problem is that the US is not the only country in the world that uses the WWW, and there is widespread cultural variety in acceptable standards. It's significant that the British BT company supports these TLDs, because BT is a backward, insular corporation - if it hadn't had competition from cable, the UK would still be on dial up. Any proposal supported by BT is automatically a bad idea.

      It's also worth pointing out that "sex" and "xxx" probably only have meaning in American English - in

    • and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains.

      Why? The TLDs were designed to break up the WWW based on categories. Ok, so the US never really enforced the other TLDs, but other countries haven't been so lax. In Australia, you need to be a registered business (which is not hard - costs nothing, takes one phone call) to register a .com.au. You need to be a registered charity or non-profit to register a .org.au, a certified educational institute for .edu, etc (we do drop the ball with .net). I don't see any problem requiring pornographic sites onto a .xxx

  • FINALLY (Score:5, Funny)

    by decipher_saint (72686) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:01PM (#32683566) Homepage

    Finally there will be porn on the internet.

    Took them long enough!

  • by PhrstBrn (751463) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:06PM (#32683666)

    Nobody will use it. Using .xxx will allow every administrator to just wildcard block the .xxx domain, and I doubt its in the adult industry's best interest to use it.

    It's almost baffling that the "oh, think of the children" crowd doesn't want this. I would think it would be of their interest to "force" (which I doubt could ever happen) adult companies to use the .xxx domains to allow this "dirty content" to be easily censored, and create a "red light district" of the internet, which you could just easily block with a simple wildcard filter. Fortunately, most of the censors are idiots and would rather put their head in the sand than acknowledge it exists and there is no way to get rid of it, since there will always be demand.

    Either way, whatever ICANN approves or disapproves the usage of .xxx domains, it won't make a difference either way. The internet will be full of porn, everybody who wants it will be able to get it, and .xxx will continue to be unused, whether it's available or not.

    • by jkauzlar (596349)
      +10 insightful
    • by BobMcD (601576)

      It's almost baffling that the "oh, think of the children" crowd doesn't want this. I would think it would be of their interest to "force" (which I doubt could ever happen) adult companies to use the .xxx domains to allow this "dirty content" to be easily censored, and create a "red light district" of the internet, which you could just easily block with a simple wildcard filter. Fortunately, most of the censors are idiots and would rather put their head in the sand than acknowledge it exists and there is no way to get rid of it, since there will always be demand.

      What baffles me is how some of you tend to think the internet is controlled by a single filter. Can you not imagine a kids computer in the living room with '.xxx' blocked and one in the bedroom without such limitations?

      OF COURSE there will always be demand. But segregation of this type allows for something the customer very much wants in the way of limits via age, appropriate setting, etc.

    • Nobody will use it. Using .xxx will allow every administrator to just wildcard block the .xxx domain, and I doubt its in the adult industry's best interest to use it.

      That's not how the XXX marking has ever worked, and that's not how the .xxx will work.

      Any site that has a .xxx will have a .com as well. The .xxx will serve as a promotion, just like it always has. There's no such thing as a XXX-rated movie: that was made up to grab people's attention. The same goes with .xxx -- it shows potential visitors just how hardcore they are.

      Adult sites shouldn't care that the .xxx will be blocked the .com takes care of that, really.

  • So, why have they been rejecting it for so long?

    If the religious fanatics say "sex is immoral", well, it's not like there's gonna be any MORE pr0n online. It's just giving them a different web address to use.

    And by using .xxx it will make censoring it on your home computer(s) a LOT easier for parents who don't want their kids looking for any of it.

    Or has it always been big corporations that have been opposing it, so that no one buys up coca-cola.xxx or something?

  • This is the best improvement of the internets I've heard in years. Hunting for porn should be greatly enhanced if it's address is centralized! I wonder if those military guys who invented internets ever realized what would become of their tech.
  • This will not work. at least, not the way they think it will.

    What is the reason for a .xxx domain. Ostensibly, to allow people to filter out 'porn'. Simply block the domain. A lofty goal, but it can't work this way.

    1. Would a site be 'required' to register in that domain? Well, redtube.com wouldn't go away, they simply add redtube.xxx
    2. One mans porn is another mans vacation pics.
    3. Who would be the internet police? Fred Phelps? a Sharia imam? Owner of a Barcelona gay bar? Who decides?
    4. Is this required
  • Religous Right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nuckfuts (690967) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:29PM (#32683982)

    Members of the American religious right also oppose its creation on moral grounds.

    I respect freedom of opinion, but this attitude is plain fucking stupid. As if pornography will become more/less prevalent if the .xxx tld is approved/denied.

    This is the same brand of ignorance that believes teens will have more sex if educated about it, or that prostitution should be outlawed instead of regulated.

    As a species, we wouldn't still be here if sex wasn't a big deal to us, but the range of cultural attitudes today is astounding. There's Amsterdam, where one can window shop for sexual services. There are ultra-religious societies where women must be covered from head-to-toe since, presumably, their men could not control themselves in the presence of exposed female flesh. There are countries where women have their genitals mutilated to prevent the enjoyment of sex. And there is America, where murder and violence are standard fare for entertainment, but God help us all if a nipple pops out!

    • by Znork (31774)

      where women must be covered from head-to-toe

      Ironically, and somewhat amusingly, there also appears to exist burqa fetishists. One may fleetingly wonder if there are any Amsterdam window shops catering to that kink; the cultural crossover would be quite mind boggling.

      Somehow it's still smugly satisfying to note both the failure of such rules and the implications of such attractions; porn is mostly in the mind of the observer.

  • They've already stated they are going to start selling gTLDs themselves. Soon there will be no meaning - and more importantly no accountability - for the majority of all registrations. Anyone who is really looking to make money on something explicit will just wait for the crop of new gTLDs under which domains will be sold by people who are not held responsible in any way, shape, or form, by anyone, anywhere.

    Most likely ICANN is setting up .xxx only to make a little more money off of it this way in com
  • by IGnatius T Foobar (4328) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:32PM (#32684050) Homepage Journal
    I always thought that if business sites were .com, then porn sites should be .cum
  • by peterofoz (1038508) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:36PM (#32684108) Homepage Journal
    It seems to me that creating a new TLD is like printing money. Anyone with a brand to protect will be coerced into buying up their {brand}.{TLD} to park it and prevent abuse. Consider for example: www.disney.xxx or www.ford.xxx Creating this won't eliminate porn on the other TLDs and centralized censorship is generally a bad idea.
  • Their first choice was .cum, but they decided not to go with it.
  • by bmo (77928) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @06:07PM (#32684528)

    Without a mandate to move all porn to xxx, a new xxx TLD would be worse than useless. Indeed, since the laws of the US (supposedly) end at the borders, how would this stop a (foreign to the US) porn site owner from using the standard .com TLD?

    Therefore blocking .xxx would not mean you are blocking all porn.

    There are only two winners in this scenario of mandating porn go to .xxx: the politicians for doing something that doesn't actually, well, do anything substantial or helpful in any way. The other winner would be the .xxx registrar. Money and campaign contributions for nothing. .xxx would be just another TLD ghetto like .biz. I don't know of any legitimate businesses that use .biz instead of .com, and the ones that probably do have FQDNs that end in both .biz and .com.

    It's not like domain names or TLDs matter much anymore. Yes, sex.com was worth a lot of money at one time. But that was before decent search engines. I have not gone anywhere on the Internet in many years by guessing a FQDN. It's been a long time since the 'net has been a "library without a card catalog."

    --
    BMO

  • 14 years later (Score:4, Informative)

    by mbone (558574) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @06:11PM (#32684588)

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

"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain

Working...