Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
From owner-nanog@merit.edu Thu May 11 12:41:20 2006 Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:40:22 -0400 From: Alain Hebert <ahebert@pubnix.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:46:40 -0400 From: David Farber <dave@farber.net> To: ip@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Begin forwarded message:
As reported in:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/print?id=1947950
ICANN has reversed their earlier preliminary approval, and has now rejected the "dot-xxx" adult materials top-level domain. I applaud this wise decision by ICANN, which should simultaneously please both anti-porn and free speech proponents, where opposition to the TLD has been intense, though for totally disparate reasons.
Nick's AP piece referenced above notes that there are still Congressional efforts to mandate such a TLD. It is important to work toward ensuring that these do not gain traction.
Why?
If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there.
And _that_ is *precisely* "why not". <grin> When you figure out _how_ to accomplish the 'and' part of your statement, *world-wide*, and _how_long_ it would take to do so, *AND*CAN*GET*UNIVERSAL* *AGREEMENT* about what has to be inside the coral(sic), well, then, and -only- then can one consider 'what _useful_ purpose' such a TLD would serve. Note also: attempting to impose additional restrictions on _existant_, registered domains would likely constitute breach of contract. With big liabilities attached -- look at what the hijacking of 'sex.com' ended up costing the registrar that let it happen. Restricting future domain registrations _in_an_exsiting_TLD_ raises a separate can of worms, regarding existing registry operator and registrar contracts.
On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:57:36 CDT, Robert Bonomi said:
Note also: attempting to impose additional restrictions on _existant_, registered domains would likely constitute breach of contract. With big liabilities attached -- look at what the hijacking of 'sex.com' ended up costing the registrar that let it happen.
So for those of us who tuned in late, when did it happen, when was the registrar assessed the costs of letting it happen, and what were those costs? And what effect did it have on other registrars to make them tighten up their procedures so they wouldn't be complicit in domain hijackings?
On 5/11/06, Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there.
And _that_ is *precisely* "why not". <grin>
There have been at least three generations of proposals for .xxx 1 - In the early days, before ICANN's coup, while there was still active discussion about how to manage the DNS, there were proposals to create .sex and/or .xxx to sell to porn sites, and some of the alt-root types succeeded in making some money doing so. 2 - A few years ago, some US prudes proposed creating a .xxx to exile all the porn sites too, and at some point proposals were made to ICANN to create it. 3 - Shortly thereafter, other US prudes who weren't in the loop heard that there was a proposal to have *pornography* on the *internet*, and got upset and tried to ban .xxx. Tree-structured hierarchies are so much fun - there's inherently the potential for a power struggle for ownership of the root, and it's quite easy for the tree to absorb competitors or be absorbed by competitors (e.g. foo.altrootgang1.altroots.net. or microsoft.com.icannroot. both work, though the former annoys fewer people.) And Peter says he's working with Joe Baptista, so he doesn't need Jim Fleming to make his net.troll quota for the month :-) (Joe may be a troll, but he's done some *really* impressive trolling, particularly involving fax machines and the Canadian government.) -- ---- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
participants (3)
-
Bill Stewart -
Robert Bonomi -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu