Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Networking Technology

Saudi Arabia Objects To Proposed .gay gTLD, Among Others 459

Posted by Soulskill
from the remind-to-register-the-.notsurprised-gtld dept.
Qedward writes "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has objected to a variety of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) ranging from .porn and .sexy to .wine and .bar and .bible, according to records of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The organisation said in June it had received 1930 applications for gTLD 'strings,' of which 911 came from North America and 675 from Europe. Saudi Arabia's Communication and Information Technology Commission, the IT and communications regulator, has objected to the .gay string and asked ICANN to refuse the application for the new gTLD. 'Many societies and cultures consider homosexuality to be contrary to their culture, morality or religion,' CITC said. 'The creation of a gTLD string which promotes homosexuality will be offensive to these societies and cultures,' it added."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Saudi Arabia Objects To Proposed .gay gTLD, Among Others

Comments Filter:
  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:16PM (#41000951)

    Interesting the .gay thing, considering how infamous Saudi Party Boys are...

    • by couchslug (175151)

      "Interesting the .gay thing, considering how infamous Saudi Party Boys are..."

      That's among the reasons Saudis pray in KSA but party in Bahrain.

    • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

      by wytcld (179112) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:52PM (#41001509) Homepage

      What should we expect from men in dresses who are afraid of women? At least Allah has put them someplace where there's plenty of lube!

    • by glebovitz (202712)

      Gosh, I hope they aren't going to my ".fatuglymisogynistichomophobicsaudidouchebags" gTLD too.

      • by kenj0418 (230916)

        I was thinking we work with the Unicode people to get one or more of the 'smiley face' characters renamed to 'The Prophet Mohammed'. And then we try to register 4chan.(that)

        While they are busy freaking out over that, we proceed with all of the gTLDs we were really planning on creating.

    • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki @ g m a i l . com> on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @04:03PM (#41001673) Homepage

      Not sure why that's modded funny. Bachi Boy parties [bullseyerooster.com] are common in saudi arabia, afghanistan and a variety of other middle eastern countries.

      • Because "Saudi Party Boys" *sounds* like it might be the name of a gay porno flick.

        "Bachi Boy parties" sounds like a children's-entertainment company specializing in hosting bocce ball birthday parties.

        Oh, thanks to the recent military involvement in that part of the world, most Americans who watch the news are aware of "Bachi Boys" in Afghanistan and the political trouble American military and civilian personnel get into back home if they appear to endorse the sexual and quasi-sexual (e.g. erotic dancing)

  • Well... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Moheeheeko (1682914)
    ..At least its equal opportunity opression.
  • Well I object (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:17PM (#41000967)

    to their treatment of Jews and women, so they can kiss my ass.

    • by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:32PM (#41001235)

      to their treatment of Jews and women, so they can kiss my ass.

      The Saudis probably wouldn't object to .jew because it would help them block a lot of material...

      • Re:Well I object (Score:5, Insightful)

        by X0563511 (793323) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:34PM (#41001251) Homepage Journal

        So, why would they object to .gay? They can block it for the same reason.

    • by tverbeek (457094)

      Is it too late for me to object to .COM?

  • by cynop (2023642) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:17PM (#41000971)

    Why don't the simply censor those domains? They already censor the hell of the internet anyway.

    • by Joce640k (829181)

      Yep. Surely this makes it far, far easier to block these sites at the ISP level.

      Then again, maybe we're expecting politicians to understand technology.

    • by icebike (68054) * on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:33PM (#41001247)

      Exactly my thought. Wouldn't this make it EASIER for them?

      What are they bitching about? Its a boat load easier to block entire TL domains in their DNS servers than to block a gazillion .coms all over the world.

      Sure the wise will change to some other DNS server, and they may have to block IPs, but so what? They already have that problem. I suspect they also block out of country dns servers.

      • by Jeng (926980) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:44PM (#41001415)

        The problem is that it will be easier to block them, so now they won't have access to them.

        The old "Women are for babies, boys are pleasure" attitude in the Islamic world is prevalent enough that I do not understand why they don't just come out of the closet?

        http://sheikyermami.com/2008/06/22/afghanistan-thursday-night-is-boyz-night/ [sheikyermami.com]

      • by Asic Eng (193332)

        Yes, it would make it easier. So why do they still object? Because for many religious people (and not just them) it's not enough to live their own lives according to their own ideas - they could do that already and have no censorship of the internet at all. No, they want to meddle in other people's lives as well.

        And then of course there is what many corrupt and morally bankrupt politicians do: they pander. Acting "against immorality" - no matter how pointless and ineffectual - conveys the impression that

    • by Sir_Sri (199544) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:52PM (#41001511)

      Saudi view themselves as the leaders of the Islamic faith (sort of like if Italy took the lead on all things catholic that the pope said, good ideas or not).

      To them the notion that some of these concepts could even be considered acceptable, anywhere, is outrageous, and true moral leadership is to object vigorously to all of it. They know they'll probably lose, and they probably want to lose (and I'm sure the US embassy was consulted in advance as to whether or not they had any chance of actually getting their opinions followed). But as the stewards of the islamic faith they must at all times appear to object to things contrary to the brand of islam they are promoting.

      The idea that these behaviours (consumption of alcohol, sex for fun, homosexuality etc.) could be exposed to any of the islamic faith, especially their poorer brethren, who rely on the Kingdom for guidance and support on these issues, means they must show their leadership to the world and demand such unislamic activites be discouraged at all time. It would be equally terrible if a member of the Islamic faith outside of a Islamic society were to be corrupted by these ideas, especially as a young, impressionable boy or girl in the US or Europe, and the international community should at all times work to protect them from unislamic influences, everywhere.

      It's stupid, they know it's stupid, you know it's stupid, but the poor illiterate bastard in Bangladesh or Afghanistan or Morocco or the like can get outraged over it and they don't know it's theatre for their benefit, the saudi's can claim to be defenders of the islamic faith (which wins them points with the literate crazies) and it's unlikely to go very far anyway, so no harm done.

      • by davidwr (791652) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @04:36PM (#41002119) Homepage Journal

        Um, nevermind, it's too late for them to do that with a straight face.

  • by agm (467017) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:18PM (#41000985)

    I find religion contrary to my morality.

    • by rickb928 (945187)

      My religion compels me to pray for you, and to let you be. Others, not so much.

      • by chrb (1083577) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @04:08PM (#41001721)

        My religion compels me to pray for you, and to let you be.

        Your religion doesn't compel any such thing - it is your personal internal sense of morality that guides you. If a proof were produced that your god did not exist, would you suddenly throw away all of your morality and principles, and turn to murdering, raping and thieving? Of course not. Millions of people have been killed in the name of the world's major religions, and many more have suffered persecution because of their religious beliefs. The "peace" that we have have now is more a product of the Western world turning towards secularism than anything else; it was only 70 years ago that some Christians were busy rounding up Jews - when the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church actually said, [time.com] "Why should we not get rid of these parasites [Jews] who suck Rumanian Christian blood? It is logical and holy to react against them.". Of course it would be unacceptable for a religious leader to say something like that today, wouldn't it? Hmmm... are we really so arrogant to believe that we have evolved so far, culturally and as a species, that such thoughts are no longer possible?

      • by Yosho (135835)

        My religion compels me to pray for you, and to let you be.

        Which is it? If you believe that prayer has any sort of real effect, then you are not doing a very good job of letting me be.

  • by killmenow (184444) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:20PM (#41001025)
    .fuckyousaudiarabia
  • by xero314 (722674) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:21PM (#41001033)
    As an Anarcho-Syndiclist I object to organizations and companies so I respectful request that be remove the .org and .com TLDs.
  • by 0racle (667029) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:21PM (#41001049)
    The .gay TLD will instantly make it apparent that the content is something they find offensive and they won't mistakenly go there. Seems like a win, unless of course the offensive material isn't what the problem actually is.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The problem probably is that I registered .quran and made it an alias.

  • by MadCow42 (243108) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:22PM (#41001057) Homepage

    I'm continually amazed that people think that because something offends THEM, that they have the right to censor what other people can do/see/say/hear/view/etc. There are a few things that the world DOES agree on - such as kiddie porn and murder being bad - but beyond that, if you're offended then simply censor YOURSELF and don't visit those sites! If the whole country agrees (which I doubt!), then block it in your country.

    If ICANN doesn't tell them to go take a flying leap, there should be rebellion.

    MadCow.

    • by KhabaLox (1906148)

      There are a few things that the world DOES agree on - such as kiddie porn and murder being bad -

      I don't see a lot of agreement on "murder being bad." Lots of countries and cultures regularly commit it with premeditation.

      • Murder is, by definition, the bad kind of killing. Other types of killing may exist-- it depends on the state.

    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      Funny, it seems to go both ways, with the Chik-fil-a thing and Chicago/Boston think they can keep an employer out of city simply for expressing his views about .gay marriage. However, I agree with you on principle, if people would quit forcing their views on others, that would be great.

      For the record, I'm offended that you're offended that I'm offended that you're offended.

      • Funny, it seems to go both ways, with the Chik-fil-a thing and Chicago/Boston think they can keep an employer out of city simply for expressing his views about .gay marriage. However, I agree with you on principle, if people would quit forcing their views on others, that would be great.

        For the record, I'm offended that you're offended that I'm offended that you're offended.

        Spectator #1: Oh my God. I'm so offended. I'm going to do something about this.
        Spectator #2: Mike, there's not really anything you can do.
        Spectator #1: Wow, you're right. I guess I'm just going to have to develop a sense of humor, huh?

        - Excerpt from A Very Special Family Guy Freakin' Christmas

  • Irony (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sparticus789 (2625955) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:22PM (#41001067) Journal

    Saudi Arabia refuses to allow for a .gay domain
    People continue to put oil from that country in their cars.

    Chick-Fil-A founder says he personally believes marriage is between a man and a woman
    Gets boycotted.

    • Re:Irony (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:30PM (#41001195)
      It's easy to go without chick-fil-a. A minor inconvenience at most. Going without oil, though, is a major problem. Especially so in the US.

      For a related example, look at all those people who boycott genetically-modified foods, but would suddenly find their objections disappear upon diagnosis of diabeties. The best treatment involves insulin produced by transgenic bacteria. Or the fuss last year when it was emerged that some of the flavorings used in coke-cola and a few other products were tested on human embryonic stem cells - there were a lot of boycotts over that one, but always of food. No-one called for a boycott of drugs, even though practically every medication developed in the last thirty years was developed and tested using the same cell line, HEK 293.
      • Bad related example. I grow my own vegetables, using Heirloom seeds. These seeds are bred and cultivated, sure, but they don't undergo the sort of selective breeding as you'd find happens with the Triticale family of grains which leaves farmers (mainly in Canada) sowing terminal generations of cereals. Those crops do not spawn successive generations, hence the collective term "terminal". What I grow does spawn successive generations, which are in practically every sense of the word, identical to the previou

    • Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:31PM (#41001209) Journal

      Well, let's see here...

      Cheap petrochemicals are one of the most vital foundations of modern technological civilization, making possible(and helping to set the price and availability of) virtually anything everyone who isn't a subsistence mud farmer interacts with day to day.

      Brand A fast food chicken products are, roughly as comestible as Brand B fast food chicken products.

      Nope, no significant difference there, must be ironic.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You do realize that the US gets the most of its oil from Canada don't you? While I am no fan of french fries and gravy, I see no reason to boycott Canadian oil.

      • Minor nit, but as the 3rd largest producer of oil, the #1 source of American oil is America. So maybe Canada is #1 exporter to America.

        That being said, America uses a lot of oil (both in terms of gross numbers and per capita) and oil is fungible. So it does not matter who the Saudis pump to, global swings in supply and demand will affect the price you pay at the pump.

      • by Mashiki (184564)

        I see no reason to boycott Canadian oil.

        Really? Chiquita banana [www.cbc.ca] tried. Then they said it wasn't true and there was no boycott. [nationalpost.com] That was after the Canadian public turned around and left their produce rotting on store shelves.

    • by mooingyak (720677)

      Let me know how to boycott Saudi and ONLY Saudi gas and I'm on board.

    • by 0racle (667029)
      First, you don't know exactly where the oil to make that gallon of gas you just burned came from, it is impossible to stop using just Saudi oil. You also might be surprised to learn that for some time now, many people have been advocating changes to wean the US off foreign oil. This would include Saudi oil.

      Second, who cares what the CEO of Chick-Fil-A said. The issue, which started before he opened his mouth, is Chick-Fil-A the corporation is donating to Anti-Homosexual groups. Some people have a problem
  • by John Hasler (414242) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:23PM (#41001081) Homepage

    ...it would be for "control" of the Internet to be taken away from the evil Americans and given to the saintly UN where rational, tolerant governments such as that of Saudi Arabia have influence?

  • by kawabago (551139) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:24PM (#41001093)
    Saudi Arabia stands for tyrannic despotic dictators with no legitimate right to rule who enforce intolerance and oppression over a people who deserve far better. Take Saudi Arabia off the net NOW!!!!!!!
    • by chrb (1083577)

      Saudi Arabia stands for tyrannic despotic dictators with no legitimate right to rule who enforce intolerance and oppression over a people who deserve far better.

      You are correct; were it not for the billions that they make every year selling oil, and the fact that they are a U.S. client state propped up by U.S. industry and military support, then it is likely the House of Saud would have been overthrown a long time ago. The alliance between the United States and the House of Saud is purely one of convenience and money - as soon as one no longer needs the other, it will go bad.

      if there was a moment of the Arab revolt that sounded the death knell for a broad and rapid transition to representative government across the Middle East, it came on the last day of February, when Saudi tanks rolled across the border to help put down the mass uprising that threatened the powers that be in neighboring Bahrain. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136473/john-r-bradley/saudi-arabias-invisible-hand-in-the-arab-spring [foreignaffairs.com]

      In foreign policy the Saudis are leading other monarchies in the region in the counterattack against political change. They backed the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators until the last minute. They gave Jordan $1.4bn in aid and took both it and Morocco into the Saudi-dominated Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). Along with other Gulf states, Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain to quash the Shia-dominated protest. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/30/editorial-saudi-arabia-arab-spring [guardian.co.uk]

  • You would think they would be all for it because once it's in effect they can simply block by TLD. Right? Wrong.
    With this request they are simply advertising to the world: "We are serious about remaining unintelligent, primitive bigots".

  • Do you suppose they also object to .koran, .quran , or whatever else might represent their scriptures?

    Probably. This is about control, of course, and that's the game in most of the Middle East . Well, probably everywhere else too. Darn.

  • They also like the .slavery, .nowomensrights, and the .infidel TLDs.

    Seriously; I think some of the alternative energy things are barking up the wrong tree, but at this point, I would be willing to support any energy plan that gets us off these jerk's oil. I want to be liberated from Saudi Arabia and then bomb their fucking stuck-up, 15th century asses into the ground. The USA gives them latitude because we depend upon their oil, and all the while, they are the most restrictive country in the world. North Ko

    • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:45PM (#41001423) Homepage Journal

      and then bomb their fucking stuck-up, 15th century asses into the ground

      Yeah, that'll show 'em what civilized behavior looks like!

      • by gman003 (1693318)

        Civilization (n) [from the Latin civilus, "a Roman legionnaire, particularly one in the Gallic divisions"]
        1) Having bigger, better, and more weapons than "uncivilized peoples"; this implicitly elevates the status of one's arts and culture above the rest
        2) A computer game series, in which victory is generally obtained by acquiring bigger, better and more weapons than the other players.

        See also: civil war
        Contrast: barbarian

        (Taken without permission from the 2038 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary)

      • by stdarg (456557)

        Isn't it civilized to punish people who do bad things?

  • by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:27PM (#41001151) Homepage Journal

    I mean, I know I am being bombastic, but really... who cares what they think. We don't need to change our ways or ideas because they are "offended." As a matter of fact the reason they want us to change... so they can enforce their views on the public. As a sovereign country they can do that even if it is distasteful to us. They don't have the right to extend that influence anywhere else because they aren't sovereign any where else.

    Look at what Iran has just done. If they want to disconnect from the rest of the world they can do the same thing.

  • If I were running my own kingdom I would object to every new tld added not directly related to the partitioning of a new country.

    I would seek all technical measures and pressures possible to ensure those who would use such TLDs would find them to be inaccessable to huge swaths of public thus significantly degrading their value.

    ICANN deserves to rot in .hell for hurting the network for profit.

  • But if there's no .gay TLD, where will I put my new "Happy Thoughts" blog?
  • Aren't they rather antiquated? We don't need them - what about http://google [google]?

  • There seems a lot of Islamophobia on the site today!

    The system should have simply kept to the .org .edu .mil .gov and .com TLDs, plus the ones for countries where nations could do as they like.
    In fact it was a bad idea having ANY tlds except for nations; it would have solved a lot of problems if Saudi Arabia applied its own rules to its own domain, and the US to its domain. Instead everyone wants a TLD to show how important their organisation is.

    • by Kalriath (849904)

      Actually, .edu, .mil, and .gov should also be abolished. They should be .edu.us, .mil.us, and .gov.us. The gTLD namespace should not have US TLDs polluting it.

  • Do they think that the current internet is unable to host sites that 'promote homosexuality'?

    On a side note, who here still thinks it's a good idea for the UN to be in charge of the internet?

  • by Fuzzums (250400)

    I find religious TLD's offensive. My point is easy to see.
    Religious TLD's make it so much easier to get to religious sites and that increases the risk of extremism with all the sad consequences.
    Apart from that, sites about gawd are an insult to all the free thinking people in the world.
    Remember the Spanish Inquisition? Should the internet be a platform for "those kind of people"?

    Ok. Enough sarcasm.

    Please believe what you want, as long as you don't bother me with it. But that doesn't go the other way around,

  • I (dot).Kill you!

    Okay, someone will be offended by something at any given moment. But let's look at any of the rules in there. Do they have any verbage against curse words?

    But then again... .sex is probably allowed and .gay could mean a lot of things...

    Screw it. Let them eat hate for breakfast lunch and dinner.

  • Duly noted.

    Subsequently, we refer you to the response given in Arkell v. Pressdram

    Have a lovely day.
    - ICANN
  • To my understanding the social left in America is about inclusion. Obviously, this means a heavily pro-gay agenda. It has also manifested in an effort to respect all religions*, including Muslims, and not only tolerate their practices and beliefs in the US, but support and embrace them. Whenever someone comes out against perceived or real moral deficiencies of Islam, the left is ready to attack that person as a right-wing hater.

    But Islam condemns homosexuality. It is not only a general disapproval of homose

    • To my understanding the social left in America is about inclusion.

      Well, see, there's your problem - you've bought into the false image, perpetuated by the mass corporate media, that such labels actually apply to any reasonable sample size of the population.

      The "Liberal Left" and "Conservative Right" do not exist. I know it's hard to believe, especially in the face of non-stop, 24-hour propaganda networks telling you that they do, but both labels are obvious fabrications, easily debunked by dropping one's preconceived notions and actually talking to other people. Do so,

    • by Yosho (135835)

      To my understanding the social left in America is about inclusion. Obviously, this means a heavily pro-gay agenda.

      No, that's not correct. It is about equality; it is possible to promote a group people being fairly without also punishing another group.

      It has also manifested in an effort to respect all religions

      Not correct at all. First of all, it is entirely possible to respect a person without bowing down to their beliefs. Second, it is about ensuring that the government does not use its influence to promote any particular religion.

      So, how does a person on the left, which branded Jerry Falwell as an "agent of intolerance," reconcile this "respect everyone" attitude with this?

      The above misunderstandings are the cause of your confusion. It is possible to allow a person to believe what they want without punishing them f

    • I'm firmly "social left" by American yardstick, but I despise contemporary mainstream Islam with a passion for being the most bigoted major religion in the world today. Their treatment of gays is a part of that.

  • by gestalt_n_pepper (991155) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @04:10PM (#41001749)

    The KSA didn't invent or build, nor do they own, the internet. If the KSA objects to the content on the internet, they are free to filter or restrict whatever they wish, in their own country. While the rest of the world is unlikely to have much interest in their objections, they are free to make as many objections as they wish.

Things equal to nothing else are equal to each other.

Working...