.xxx domain shot down
So it seems that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has, for the third time in seven years, rejected a ".xxx" domain dedicated to porn sites.
"Many of the board members said they were concerned about the possibility that ICANN could find itself in the content regulation business if the domain name was approved. Others criticized that, saying ICANN should not block new domains over fears like that, noting that local, state and national laws could be used to decide what is pornographic and what is not.
Other board members said they believed that opposition to the domain by the adult industry, including Web masters, content providers and others, was proof that the issue was divisive and that ''.xxx'' was not a welcome domain."
Maybe they should rename the organization ICANN'T.
I don't have an opinion on this yet. Gotta think through the ramifications of encapsulating porn sites vs. not.
March 30th, 2007 6:38am
I do. I dunno what they're worried about. It's teh same argument as having a red light district - it's gonna happen, so put it in a place where "if you don't want to see that, don't go".
Admittedly the analogy isn't perfect, but it makes some sense. I can't think of a reason not to, is another.
March 30th, 2007 7:18am
The US porn industry is bound to be against it, because they'll get ghettoized. Plus if the option is available to easily block all xxx sites easily, which it will be if they are all pushed into .xxx, it will hurt the porn industry's revenues.
BUT, their greed aside, the .xxx domain IS a dumb idea.
Another equally dumb idea, along the same lines: Put porn on a different port number - http://www.cp80.org/
. This variant is particularly stupid as the proposal here is to get every country to require it by law, and block any country that doesn't.
And that reveals the fundamental problem: One man's porn is another man's educational site, or normal ordinary non-sexual activity.
Bikini sites would be porn in Saudi Arabia, and maybe Utah
Pictures of women's feet would be porn in parts of China
Two gay men kissing on any site, however otherwise innocuous the site, would be considered disgusting filthy illegal scummy porn in many parts of Africa.
Even the CP80 example is broken. It talks about Amazon being on port 80 for normal stuff, and 443 for SSL. Only trouble is maybe some of Amazon needs to go on the porn port/domain? They sell some pretty hot calendars, videos, etc., They have some quite revealing pictures of women in lingerie in their apparel section: search for body stocking. I have no doubt that these would be considered porn by some people.
And aside from all that, ICANN, IANA and the other alphabet soup organizations are EXACTLY the wrong organizations to get involved in figuring out how to classify and regulate content. They're technical organizations for controlling infrastructure. It's like asking the Highways Agency (building a road network) to start individual vehicle inspections.
March 30th, 2007 7:36am
Does it really matter?
bangbros.com bangbros.xxx only a few quid
what are you reading for?
March 30th, 2007 7:38am
good points, nameless one.
March 30th, 2007 7:43am
So why have COM ORG EDU MIL TV NET INFO?
It's supposedly done to separate content, right?
Apart from the question if it is a good idea to separate content based on TLD, the precedent is there. Instead of some scalable naming scheme, a 'type-of-content' scheme was chosen. You either stick with it or come up with something better.
We all know what this is: Bullshitting just to not have to deal with PORN! Well it's there and not only is it there it has been one of the key factors in making the internet a success.
If you accept porn as a normal and legal business type I'd expect the porn industry to be very cooperative in finding ways to make there content identifiable and filterable.
Locutus of Borg
March 30th, 2007 8:05am
March 30th, 2007 8:07am
> So why have COM ORG EDU MIL TV NET INFO?
TV is a country
But in any case, none of these have *ANY* relationship to the *CONTENT* on the domain. They are related to whom they are issued to:
EDU = issued to educational organizations
MIL = issued to military
TV = issued to a country (who then choose to issue onwards)
COM, ORG, NET, INFO = issued to anybody who can pay
To be analagous to EDU or MIL, XXX would have to be issued to bone fide porn organizations only. How does that work?
To be analagous to TV, XXX would have to be issued to the Republic of Porn only.
March 30th, 2007 8:10am
> To be analagous to EDU or MIL, XXX would have to be issued
> to bone fide porn organizations only. How does that work?
The same? I'm aware that this varies wildly depending on where you live. But porn in general is a very large industry with many ordinary tax paying companies who buy their domain just like anybody else does.
Locutus of Borg
March 30th, 2007 8:24am
Yes there are large legitimate companies in the porn industry. So what.
The point is who decides whether a particular company is a porn company? Bikini News, Amazon.com and Sports Illustrated would be porn according to some.
March 30th, 2007 8:37am
There is a gray area depending on culture and geography. So?
There is also a not so gray area with many sites who claim nothing else than to be porn sites. The discussion if lingerie ads on amazon.com is porn or not is just derailing this discussion. We are not trying to define what is porn and what not. We are trying to find a way to separate content in a way so that people who are offended by certain types of content can block it or avoid it without hurting the legitimate commercial interests of the porn industry.
Locutus of Borg
March 30th, 2007 8:52am
You don't have a right not to be offended, and to demand the rest of the world conform to your prejudices.
Especially, not some particular arbitrary criteria which is your particular hang-up. And with particular lines where you choose to draw them in your _highly_parochial_ standards - as I said before - and which you've conspicuously avoided - even bikini or short-skirt pictures ARE porn in many places. A topless woman is probably porn in the US, but it's not even extraordinary in many places in Europe - e.g. in newspapers in Britain, or used to slow traffic down in Denmark, or ordinary on a Mediterranean beach,.
Standards differ, and I see no reason to choose your particular standard definitions over any others.
There are large numbers of people who are offended by gambling, eating pork, homosexuality, eating milk and meat together, insulting the bible, insulting the quran, cartoons of muhameed, evolution, dinosaurs, breast cancer screening, racist material, anti-racist material, you name it. Yet nobody is proposing dividing the internet based on these criteria.
March 30th, 2007 9:02am
The problem with setting up the .xxx TLD is that once you segregate it, it becomes easier to filter.
Which can be seen as a strength, as long as the parents are the ones doing it with "NannyGuard" or other product.
However, it's a significant weakness if the filtering happens at the ISP, regional, or national level, because then you're now doing censorship.
March 30th, 2007 9:55am
The peculiar thing is the very idea that it matters either way.
Why on earth does anyone expect anyone to use such an domain?
I highly doubt the porn business will even use it even if it was cleared, because there's no way it would affect business.
Of course they will protect their trademarks and stuff, but aside of that, what's the friggin point?
why attack the porn companies?
How about requiring .pollution for companies with environmental violations? or .corrupt for companies taking bribes?
porn between consenting adults is low on my list of corporate no-nos.
March 30th, 2007 11:08am
>> Of course they will protect their trademarks and stuff, but aside of that, what's the friggin point? <<
That's a good point. The only winners in this will be the domain name registrars, who will get a financial windfall as the porn companies rush to register the .xxx versions of their existing names.