On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 03:28 -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/06/01/internet.porn.ap/index.html
|ICM contends the "xxx" Web addresses, which it plans to sell for $60 a |year, will protect children from online smut if adult sites voluntarily |adopt the suffix so filtering software used by families can more |effectively block access to those sites
How is charging $60/year going to protect children from "online smut"? if anything it'll still be that less reputable will continue to use less expensive domains.
IANA doesn't read rfc3675 I guess.... http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt RFC 3675 - .sex Considered Dangerous 8<--------- Periodically there are proposals to mandate the use of a special top level name or an IP address bit to flag "adult" or "unsafe" material or the like. This document explains why this is an ill considered idea from the legal, philosophical, and particularly, the technical points of view. --------->8 or to make it very easy, for the folks who don't want to read it, here is a nice ascii-art picture from the RFC: 8<----------------- +-----------------------------------------+ | . (root) zone | | .com .org .net .us .uk .sex ... | +---+---------------------------+---------+ | | V V +--------------------+ +--------------------+ | .com zone | | .sex zone | | example.com ... | | example.sex ... | +---------------+----+ +---------------+----+ | | V V +---------------------+ +----------------------+ | example.com zone | | example.sex zone | | | | | | purity.example.com -+--+ +---+- obscene.example.sex | | virtue.example.com | | | | porn.example.sex | | | | | | | | | +------+--------------+ | | +--------+-------------+ | +------+------+ | | +-------------+ | | V V V V +-----------------+ +------------------+ | Virtuous Data | | Salacious Data | +-----------------+ +------------------+ -------------->8 Now can IANA stop doing silly stuff like earning money and start working on managing IP resources properly?
Also I'm curious how much of that $60 will go to ICANN packet? If not much then ICM is getting really good deal, amazingly good deal, a monopoly heaven in fact that reminds me of another TLD decision mentioned at nanog that ICANN is about to make official...
per country tld's was a good idea, they should have required [com|org| ersonal].cc-tld though. The addition of com/net/org. could then be used for international stuff. All those silly new things like .jobs/travel/museum/aero etc don't make sense, those are either org's or com's. Too late to fix that now... Greets, Jeroen