Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

XXX Goes Live In the Root Servers 163

Posted by timothy
from the did-you-feel-a-disturbance-in-the-force? dept.
An anonymous reader writes that yesterday "IANA added the .XXX Top Level Domain to the root nameservers. While the registry operator Afilias is still in their setup process for ICM registry, the zone is currently propagating. While a number of registrars have already been taking pre-registrations, the actual timeline for the launch has not yet been published."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

XXX Goes Live In the Root Servers

Comments Filter:
  • by Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @09:36AM (#35839716)

    Yeah, I'm going to pay for a domain that will be blocked in 90% of the world...

    • by Zeek40 (1017978) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @09:59AM (#35839850)
      Porn sites are already blocked in some percentage of the world (I really doubt it's 90%, regardless of what metric you use) and still makes huge amounts of money. Changing your domain from .com to .xxx is only going to lose you that tiny fraction of users who both live in oppressive nations and are tech savvy enough to work around government internet filters.
      • by Asm-Coder (929671)

        and are tech savvy enough to work around government internet filters.

        If they are tech savvy enough to work around government filters, why can't they work around a domain name filter?

    • by gmuslera (3436)
      Just wait till the "think of the children" meme goes to porn domains and they takes out your .com or .whatever domain if it is meant for porn, forcing you to only use .xxx. If you plan to start the race to get the good domains in that moment you already lost.
      • I used to lose sleep over that, too, but (a) if a registrar did that, they'd just be driving business elsewhere and (b) the idea of seizing a porn domain like the DHS has been seizing "copyright-infringing" domains would be a problem given the lack of a stern party convinced their rights are being infringed.

        I mean, no one could be so stupid as to claim that, right?

        NOTE: If in Australia, assume all porn is censored anyway.
        • My god-given right to a porn-free internet shall not be infringed! You pervert.

          Besides, I've already downloaded all the porn I want.

    • Do you think the creators of this film [imdb.com] ever considered how bad a choice of name they did? A film for teens whose name itself causes it to be blocked by almost all net filters...

    • Nothing creates better demand than prohibition.

    • So you could take any site off line in those places by registering a .xxx domain name and point it to the same IP address.

      • Depends on what they block I suppose... There are a lot of different ways to accomplish blocking, but blacklisting IP addresses is the simplest.

  • by rubycodez (864176) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @09:43AM (#35839762)
    I want to register re.xxx and put cool REstructured eXtended eXecutor scripts there
  • by phantomfive (622387) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @09:48AM (#35839794) Journal
    The only good thing about .xxx domain finally being implemented is that we no longer have to read stories and endure the arguments of those who want to create the domain. I kind of think IANA finally allowed it to be created so they would no longer have to put up with requests. I remember reading stories about it (and why it was a bad idea) as far back as 1997.
    • Re:only good thing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Vekseid (1528215) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @09:54AM (#35839826) Homepage

      Except now we're going to see arguments that all adult sites should move to .xxx domains.

      I hope that idea will be a straight up non-starter and stay that way.

      • by Chaugnar (1983084)
        People should be able to filter whatever they choose. This just allows them to do it effectively. Just because you view porn at work doesn't mean the rest of have to suffer.
        • How exactly are you suffering because porn exists in the .com TLD? As it stands, people are able to filter whatever they choose. Nice combination of an ad hominem and a strawman, though.

          This isn't going to change the status quo, all it'll do is provoke a land rush for new domains that users will ignore. When was the last time you went to a .mobi? How about a .travel? .pro?
          • by Rakarra (112805)

            The only new-style TLD that I've seen had much modicum of success is .tv. And that's cheating, too.

      • a straight up non-starter

        The definition of an oxymoron in the porn world.

    • by bunratty (545641)
      The xxx sites are already too raunchy. We need a top level domain that has a more neutral name for non-raunchy adult material. IANA, please make a .nc17 TLD!
    • Re:only good thing (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rs79 (71822) <hostmaster@open-rsc.org> on Saturday April 16, 2011 @10:34AM (#35840088) Homepage

      No, ICANN finally approved it because all their criteria for a new tld had been met. There were some back door manuoverings to block the domain during the Bush Administration, specifically Karl Rove told the head of the Department of Communications (who oversee ICANN) not to add it the last time they were going to (the decision had been a "go" at ICANN, and they asked DoC to include it) as a favour to the Southern Baptist Conference who has specifically asked for it in exchange for delivering the south.

      This of course isn't legal in that there were processes set up and this sort of thing was never accounted for.

      Now, .xxx couldn't sue icann, their contractual obligations mandated they go through arbitration first. Cerf behaved very cagily and it went against him and the arbitration panel decided icann had to do what it said it would do.

      And yes it goes back to 1996/97. Up until this year I made sure .xxx worked in every alternative root cluster; I was sorta there at the birth of .xxx

      Note that about 10 years prior I also had alt.sex created.

      This took all the porn off the rest of Usenet and put it in one place. Those that wanted to filter it did, those that want to find it, know where it is, and you never heard any more about dirty pictures elsewhere in Usenet. For the most part.

      My favorite line I ever used during the DNS wars was when I got to tell the newly appointed director of DoC, who'd just been handed the the domain stuff to deal with: "Don't worry Becky, half of .com ISN'T porn". My guess is, in 10 years a porn site in .com is gonna seem really out of place.

      It's nice to see this finally go through but they have a way to go to be profitable. 10 years at about a million a year adds up. But I'm sure they'll do fine.

      Disclaimer: I have no interest or stake, financial or otherwise in .xxx (or any tld).

      • by chudnall (514856)

        There were some back door manuoverings

        I cannot believe that that was an accidental phrasing...

      • by 1u3hr (530656)

        Note that about 10 years prior I also had alt.sex created. This took all the porn off the rest of Usenet and put it in one place

        You're joking, right?

        alt.binaries.pictures.* has untold gigabytes of porn every day. And it turns up in random other groups when someone is trying to evade a block.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Not really, I've already added wildcard blocks at work and at home. I've no problem with porn, however a TLD has nothing to do with content classification so .xxx is being blocked simply because it's a disgusting perversion of the global tld namespace.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        however a TLD has nothing to do with content classification

        Ever heard of .edu? It's for educational related sites.
        Ever heard of .gov? It's for (US) government sites.
        Ever heard of .mil? It's for (US) military sites.
        Ever heard of ...
        Shit. just check this list [wikipedia.org].

        TLD nothing to do with content classification? Yeah, right.

  • by v1 (525388) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @10:06AM (#35839890) Homepage Journal

    to try to force the porn peddlers into using an .xxx domain name. Yes, they'll get blocked by a huge percentage of the web. But that's for the most part in places they're already not supposed to be like business and school networks. So while they may lose 90% of their coverage area, it won't disconnect them from more than 2% of their customers, the majority of which are hunkered down on their computers at home.

    Normally I'm not a "think of the children!" type, but in this particular case, I see it as a net-positive thing. Maybe my opinion would be different if I were in the porn business. But if things come around this way, it will make a LOT of network admins jobs a little bit easier, and will give the people paying the internet bills the service change they want. The vast majority of the public will be either indifferent or will benefit from it, the only losers will be the porn industry, and they actually won't lose that much. The only market they're going to lose is the market that they weren't supposed to be in, that they weren't making very much on anyway. If you want to talk about "market" you have to compare the seller and the buyer, (the porn site and the school for example) and can't be considering the actual audience. (the kids at school, or the worker on lunch break) They're not the customer, they're not the market. This step will help stop the porn industry from making a small amount of additional money off a market that doesn't want to be their customer.

    So I don't see this as a bad thing at all.

    • by bfree (113420) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @10:38AM (#35840118)

      What is porn? Who gets to decide the answer to that question? Will all sites covering beach volleyball have to move to .xxx? What about a site which includes instructions for how to put on a condom? How about Victoria Secrets or Sports Illustrated? How about english tabloids which feature "Page 3"?

      Let's imagine for a moment you said all those need not be forced onto .xxx, should Playboy be forced on and treated the same in this regard as donkeyrapingshiteaters.com (no idea or interest if that exists or would be legal in any juristiction, just don't complain to me if you go check and throw up)?

      Should anyone wanting access to IPs which serve any content hosted on .xxx be forced to opt in and register themselves with their ISP? Should the ISP have to verify that any access to a .xxx site is by someone over an age determined by their local laws (and they are not on any lists banning them from such access)?

      • by v1 (525388)

        While I'll agree that the definition of "porn" varies from place to place, and in some cases is extreme, the concept remains the same, sexual stimulation. There are very few web sites that actually operate somewhere in the in-between, because they generally have problems getting customers that are interested in more hard core. ("soft porn" is a relatively small industry) So it's not like there's going to be a huge number of "borderline" sites that have to be more carefully considered.

        Look at the movie ind

        • by kbonapart (645754)
          Clear and concise? Nay, my good man, nay.

          Pop over to Netflix and watch "This Film Has Not Been Rated." It takes a look at the ratings board's style and members of the MPAA.

          Some of the gems include making a movie rated X because of a too long shot of a woman's /face/ while attaining orgasm.
          • It's a pretty simple standard, if it makes you tug at your collar, it gets an R, but if you get wood, it's X.

            • by gmhowell (26755)

              It's a pretty simple standard, if it makes you tug at your collar, it gets an R, but if you get wood, it's X.

              So the underwear section of the Sears catalog back when I was younger?

        • by paiute (550198)

          the concept remains the same, sexual stimulation.

          Fine. Now define 'sexual' and define 'stimulation'.

          • there should be a term for it, because i see this fallacy a lot. "reducto ad grey area"?

            anyway, the point is simple: because a grey area exists does not mean we can't define black and white. people are always saying "ooh! ooh! look! a grey area! therefore there is no black and white, good and evil, right and wrong" etc. this is some lame loser teenager bullshit in your thinking

            a site that instructs women how to inspect their breasts in the shower for lumps/ breast cancer is NOT pornography

            a site that shows

            • The only practical definition of "pornographic" would include all nudity and most physical contact. Most parents would certainly demand that breast exam videos not be shown to children. Just like they wouldn't want them seeing sex scenes, the level of detail shown being irrelevant. "Pornographic" in the world of adults has a more specific meaning, but since censorship doesn't apply to free adults, determining the degree of obscenity is not decisively important.
              • i said gray areas don't argue against the stark black and white

                stop pointing at gray areas and thinking they mean the blatantly obvious isn't blatantly obvious

                you define pornography, and you are going to hit some gray areas. so fucking what?

                welcome to reality. because you can't get an exact fit doesn't meant the definition is without value, meaning, or usefulness

              • by xaxa (988988)

                I think most parents here would encourage watching a breast examination video, followed by a testicle examination video.

                Here's a testicle examination video for teenagers [channel4em...nesses.com]. I expect it is shown in schools -- other parts of the series are. The same website has penis and vulva galleries.

              • by Tim C (15259)

                You're just arguing for the sake of it now, aren't you?

                No, most physical contact would not be pornographic by any reasonable standard.

                No, most parents that I know would not have a problem with children being able to access breast exam how-to videos (and as the father of a young girl, I'd rather she *did* know about that sort of thing).

                Why can you not just admit that the existence of a grey area does not make it impossible to define useful extremes? As it happens I don't agree with the creation of this TLD,

            • No. You're missing the point. The issue is not that there's a grey area, it's that what is sexual stimulation for one is just a medical curiosity for someone else. What do you think a fetish is? Some people get turned on by naked bodies, others consider them normal.

              That's the real issue, and the real danger. Your breast exam site would require a .xxx location in many muslim countries. Your naked breast ads would be in .xxx in the US, and on the corporate site in Europe.

              What this can lead to is a mad rush to

              • "No. You're missing the point. The issue is not that there's a grey area"

                ok

                ", it's that what is sexual stimulation for one is just a medical curiosity for someone else"

                in other words, a gray area

                get back to us when you can say something logically coherent

                • You don't know what a gray area is. Gray area: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gray+area [thefreedictionary.com]. Sexually stimulating is very well defined on an individual level. And unfortunately, bans are made through individual assessments of whether something is sexually stimulating. Get enough people in the right position to agree with the ban, and presto: black and white ban on boobies.

                  Get back to me when you understand the words that you're using.

              • by adolf (21054)

                I'm deviant enough that I'm not afraid to say this:

                Back in the late 80's or the early 90's, I was at my grandma's house for a day or two. I took a shower.

                Hanging in that shower was a well-laminated breast self-exam instructional card.

                I found it very arousing, though at the time I plainly wouldn't have known what to do with a naked and willing girl even if I did have one. I was maybe 9 or 10, and mostly I just knew that looking at tits made my cock get hard and my head feel strange.

                Was it pornography?

        • the concept remains the same, sexual stimulation

          So Amazon, the largest seller of vibrators and literary erotica goes into xxx?

          Look at the movie industry. They have a very clear and concise way to define what makes a film rated R.

          The X rating was a failure. A lot of films worth watching aren't submitted to be rated, because it is in effect a censorship board.

          • by Urkki (668283)

            the concept remains the same, sexual stimulation

            So Amazon, the largest seller of vibrators and literary erotica goes into xxx?

            If they wanted (read: had a business interest) to create a site with limited selection, or perhaps even separate their sex products from the rest completely, or just have a different front page and "theme", then amazon.xxx sounds like a pretty good idea.

            Why wouldn't you want them to have that, if they'd happen to want it?

        • by Rakarra (112805)

          Look at the movie industry. They have a very clear and concise way to define what makes a film rated R.

          Oh man! Damn, you couldn't have picked a worse example.

      • by paimin (656338)
        "Server not found". Looks like you've identified a new market!
      • Porn is that whichever is clearly obscene. What is obscene has always been hard to get established in an American court. That is why porn often can't be blocked in public places.

        BUT now there is a porn domain. Use it and you just labelled yourself as obsene. Making you very easy to block.

        Already US senators have discussed, LONG before .xxx was created, laws to force sites to use it AND then laws to enforce blocks. Blocks on everything publicly accesible. Possible because the obscenity would be proven.

        There

      • What is porn? Who gets to decide the answer to that question?

        Porn is anything you lose interest in after orgasm. And yes, that is a very subjective definition. I sincerely hope it doesn't include your significant other.

    • by QuantumRiff (120817) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @11:36AM (#35840588)

      Are we also going to force all COMpanies out of .org and .net? Really, the only "protected" domain that does what it was intended is .EDU, and there have been some that have been allowed that should really be .COM.

      • by Cimexus (1355033)

        Agreed, though I think .GOV, .MIL, .INT have also done their job pretty well too (i.e. remained true to the original intentions of the domain). Most of the newer ones too, like .mobi, .aero etc. (though they are barely used, the few users that do exist do satisfy the registration criteria).

        The ccTLDs are a mixed bag. Some countries enforce proper restrictions on these (in-country use only, to registered companies/people/organisations. For instance, you won't see any 'abuses' of .jp, .uk, .au, .nz etc. Other

    • I agree and disagree, I actually agree with the idea of even putting all porn in one domain that can easily be blocked by certain venues. As a father I would like to be able to put a block that would prevent my son from hitting the sites accidentally until he's about 14 or 15, and I fully agree with blocking porn on the workplace etc... In theory .xxx allows people who want to look at porn to find it easier, and people who don't want to or shouldn't where they are don't have to wade through it. However it
    • by vinn01 (178295)

      It would not be enough to force the porn peddlers into using an .xxx domain name - you would have to force them off their current .com domains. You skipped that part.

      A domain takeover for hosting legal, non-infringing, content would be a big deal. That would be new territory. Currently, there are domains that are available only to certain organizations (.mil, .edu, etc.), but that is not a content decision.

  • by StripedCow (776465) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @10:13AM (#35839954)

    The whole TLD domain thing is seriously wrong and outdated, I think. I mean take the country codes... they have in many cases nothing to do with the actual country in which the servers are located. For example, "yousend.it" is an italian website?

    TLD's are just a form of artificial scarcity. And this is a bad thing.

    Why not let us just choose the names we want to choose.

    • by Max_W (812974)

      Interesting idea.

    • by 1s44c (552956)

      The whole TLD domain thing is seriously wrong and outdated, I think. I mean take the country codes... they have in many cases nothing to do with the actual country in which the servers are located. For example, "yousend.it" is an italian website?

      TLD's are just a form of artificial scarcity. And this is a bad thing.

      Country codes are being abused to hell because the whole system is now about extracting money from domain trolls and forcing multinationals to register their name in every domain in existence to fend off domain trolls.

      Remember when Mr Elz was actually checking com.au registrations to make sure they were in fact registered to real companies? He got the boot to be replaced by corrupt money-grabbing bureaucrats who don't care if I register slashdotblows.com.au as long as they get paid. They really don't care i

      • We need an alternative DNS setup away from parasitic organizations. Actually we need an alternative internet away from parasitic organizations.

        Why stop there? We need an alternate world away from parasitic organizations...

    • by h0dg3s (1225512)

      TLD's are just a form of artificial scarcity. And this is a bad thing.

      Why not let us just choose the names we want to choose.

      Because then you'll clog up dns servers adding whatever dumb TLD you choose.

  • What country does .xxx stand for?
    And how can I get there?

  • by PPH (736903)

    .... is everyone making such a big deal out of the Coat of Arms of Amsterdam [wikipedia.org]? What association does that fine city have with the sex trade anyway?

  • by binkzz (779594) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @10:55AM (#35840262) Journal
    I'm afraid I have some old documentation I need to update to prevent people from going places they shouldn't be going..
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by coplate (1187701)

      That is what this is for:
      http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2606.html [faqs.org]
      2. TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples
      ".example" is recommended for use in documentation or as examples.
      3. Reserved Example Second Level Domain Names
      The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) also currently has the
      following second level domain names reserved which can be used as
      examples.

      example.com

  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @12:25PM (#35841018) Journal

    As an industry insider I can tell you that this new domain is NOT going over terribly well. The only ones in favour are ICM (the ones taking the money for the new domains) and advertising agencies. The adult industry? Not so much.

    At it most basic, it is seen as a money grab. This is clear from how they are going to handle trademark disputes. For a fee, you can remove your trademark from EVER being registered as a .xxx domain. So Disney need not be worried about disney.xxx. As long they pay the fee. How much? They ain't saying (really, I asked at a live forum and the guys in charge refused to answer). But Disney will pay it because it won't be a lot of money (to them) and there are plenty of others who will also pay the fee to keep their name blacklisted (forever for now but of course it is only going to be a matter of time before that comes a yearly fee). That means ICM coffers will get a HUGE boost straight from the start AND they will want to keep that money flowing because money is a drug. The more you get, the more you need.

    But there are other issues at work:

    As a .xxx domain owner you agree to have your site monitored... for what? Well, child porn is trotted out predictably BUT you have to remember that this is ICM policing the site owners, NOT the police as on ALL other domains. But HOW are they going to monitor?

    http://domainincite.com/icm-faces-porn-anger-over-xxx/

    I attended this myself and the following is true:

    At one point, Liley flatly denied that ICM plans to “spider” .xxx domains to enforce compliance with IFFOR policies, such as the prohibition on meta tags that suggest the presence of child pornography.

    Minutes later, a .xxx opponent read aloud from the IFFOR policy (pdf) that says all registrants must consent to “automated monitoring”.

    Vaughn refused to answer many questions and weasled his way around others. The porn industry is CLEARLY not in favor of this.

    One thing unanswered is how they are going to monitor CLOSED sites. Remember, most porn sites are membership sites and there content is NOT meant to be available to just anyone out there. Is every .xxx site owner going to have to provide ICM with a username and password that allows full access to the site? Who is going to be responsible for breaches where these accounts are lost? Does any other site have to give full access to a private company by default to be allowed on the net?

    But should I care

    A lot of people, even on slashdot don't like porn and want it to be hidden. Fair enough? No. Not really. If you like freedom of speech and believe me, many do not, then the .XXX domain is the registration of jews.

    Godwin? Maybe but its parallels must be found in method rather then is shock effect. How did the nazi's know where to find Jews? Contrary to nazi propoganda they ain't all that easy to spot. It is not like they had it as easy as the US and its prosecuted minorities like blacks and asians. You can just tell a black person just by looking at him/her. Jew? Not so much, unless you believe nazi propoganda.

    What allowed the mass murder to happen is the "harmless" registration of religion done long before the true horror of the nazi's became clear.

    Yeah yeah, you know. So how does it apply to porn?

    Obscenity

    What is obscene? The US courts can't tell you AND this has been VERY important in ensuring free speech survives DESPITE being against the law. As long as the courts can't agree on what is obscene, the law cannot be used to ban your material. This is what allowed the porn mags such as Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler to survive countless court battles. Is obscenity forbidden? Yes. Are the mags obscene? Not proven, case dismissed. Why do you think these mags have higher grade journalism then many rags that can be bought from any store? Because it stopped them from being simply labelled as obsene AND banned.

    • by Hojima (1228978) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @03:51PM (#35842704)

      This is one of the few "wall of text" posts that I've clicked "read the rest of this comment" to. I suggest everyone else do that same as well, as this is definitely the most informative/insightful post listed here, and I wish they had a hard-to-achieve +6 in the Slashdot system so this would be the most apparent, because it would deserve it.

      • Ditto that. This post should be used as the definitive answer to any question around why the XXX TLD is a bad idea.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Murdoc (210079)
      Thank you for taking the time to post this. A lot of people don't see what the big deal is because they either can't see the long-term implications of things like this, or they get hung up on other issues (like their child seeing nipples). This helps clarify the issue a lot, and yes, strikes firmly at the core of free speech and hence democracy. Good job.
    • by vinn01 (178295) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @10:29PM (#35844852)

      a big +1

      This comment should be at the top of the thread.

      Damn Slashdot for having such a lame moderation system.

    • Very, very thoughtful and so true. Censoring is the one thing to be afraid of. The money thing is only smoke and mirrors. I would mod this to the stars if i could. Thank you.
  • by gavron (1300111) on Saturday April 16, 2011 @12:25PM (#35841028)

    > the zone is currently propagating

    Domain name zones do not propagate, and there is no "delay" in "publishing" zone information.

    Domain name information is provided by domain name servers. As soon as the server can provide the data it is considered "published". When people talk about propagation they are mistakenly referring to cached false-positives or false-negatives.

    A cached false-positive is when a previous lookup has returned a result that is no longer accurate, but the cache persists in providing that result. Instead of doing a new lookup and finding the --now changed-- data, the old stale data is returned. This is an indication of failure on the part of the domain administrator to reduce the cache time-to-live (TTL) field on the record or the entire Start of Authority for the zone.

    A cached false-negative --typically on Microsoft operating systems-- is when a previous lookup has failed to return a response, the system caches that "there is no response." A subsequent query by an application OUGHT to do a DNS query and resolve properly, but the cache instead returns the --now stale-- "there is no response." This is an indication of failure of the operating system authors to have read the relevant RFCs on DNS (or ICMP or ...) and indicates lack of knowledge, a poorly designed product, and years of asshattery.

    As soon as the ".XXX" TLD was available on the gTLD servers, it ***was*** live. Here's what affilias has: ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
    xxx. 300 IN SOA a0.xxx.afilias-nst.info. noc.afilias-nst.info. 70 7200 3600 3600000 300

    You'll note that the TTL is 300, the minimum allowable value (300sec=5min). That means they have PROPERLY set a value so that results are refreshed by those who cache them.

    Best regards,

    Ehud Gavron
    Tucson AZ

  • It occurred to me recently that porn seems safer on the web then it used to be. Years ago every click was meant with fear of unstoppable pop-ups and viruses. Now, not so much. Sure a few website links may reroute you to a new page, but nothing has gotten out of hand in awhile. Maybe I'm more mainstream these days, or maybe European pornographers are more legit (nobody speaks English in porn I've noticed, only in GGW), or maybe using FF and Chrome over IE saves the day. I'm hoping this reinforces the trend
  • Sorry to post... Y'know, actual technical stuff on a "news for nerds" site, but...

    xxx nameserver = a2.xxx.afilias-nst.info.
    xxx nameserver = b0.xxx.afilias-nst.org.
    xxx nameserver = a0.xxx.afilias-nst.info.
    xxx nameserver = d0.xxx.afilias-nst.org.
    xxx nameserver = c0.xxx.afilias-nst.info.
    xxx nameserver = b2.xxx.afilias-nst.org.

    a2.xxx.afilias-nst.info has address 199.115.156.1
    b0.xxx.afilias-nst.org has address 199.115.153.1
    a0.xxx.afilias-nst.info has address 199.115.152.1
    d0.xxx.afilias-nst.org has ad

The bogosity meter just pegged.

Working...