.XXX domain deal stripped bare The company behind a proposal to create .xxx, an adults-only top-level internet domain, is set to run the gauntlet of objections from angry pornographers and appalled Christians for the sixth time. ICANN last week published a draft contract that, if signed, could allow Florida-based ICM Registry to start offering .xxx domains …
Exactly. All these sponsored TLDs are a complete money-grabbing opportunity, forcing Google, MS, Apple, Sony, Cocacola etc to fork out dosh to prevent someone cyber-squatting* on their domains. Even if they have no intention of using the domain, it's cheaper to register and own it than run the risk.
I think I heard that it could cost something like $100,000 to set up your own sponsored TLD.
Surely you can make that back just on all the big coorporations feeling obliged to claim their internet real estate.
It's like magically creating more land for people to buy.
.info .biz .mobi .travel .museum .whatever can all die as far as I'm concerned.
Actually .com .net .org are flaky in their definitions. It's all a weird mix of domain extensions by industry/site content, then a bunch of geographical extensions. I don't even have an answer as to how it should work. Probably the sponsored TLD is a good idea, there's a ridiculous premium on .com domains so people need to be used to using and visiting sites which have other extensions.
This one definitely smells like a money-grabber though.
* No apologies for saying cyber-squatting. Twice.
> In order to be considered a part of the .xxx Sponsored Community
> and register domains, a
> business [.....] has to provide adult-oriented products and services"
> Unless I'm missing something
> "MS, Apple, Sony, Cocacola" don't do either of the above?
They will happily fuck you over , given the oppurtunity.
Would that count ?
was that domain "general" TLDs, like .com, were created and "suggested" for use by Business (.com), Network Providers (.net) and not-for-profit Organisations (.org), rather than enforced and strict use applied.
The .xxx seems to be using the "strict" approach, in that you *must* be a porn provider to buy one.
Which will make it interesting to see just how they handle squatters and "outsiders" trying to get their "trademarks" back.
I say "trademarks" because celebs names arent trademarks but for some reason ICANN believes they have more right to them than anyone else with the same name.
That said, it doesnt seem to indicate that porn providers are required to have .xxx domains, ICM and maybe ICANN seem to think they should.
My plates are rather normal, but I do drie a Pick Up Truck with a bumper sticker that says Guns cause crime like spoons cause Rosie (ODonnell) to be fat and stupid.
The French Parliament read my byline and my eponymous website and immediately draft an unconditional surrender.
Cheers,
Mike South
if that is really the same guy - kudos for commenting a response, gave me a chuckle.
One thing Mike - why don't those in the porn industry who are opposed to this move simply start a campaign to boycott the extension if it gets approved? Or perhaps another option would be to sponsor the same extension (xxx) yourselves as a different group, with the cost being inline with .com - then when ICANN try and tell you that you can't because someone is already sponsoring it, go to the DoJ and ask them to file anti-trust proceedings against ICANN for supporting monopolistic practices?
There has to be something you guys can do.
but as for the others that don't supply a front page and don't register with anyone... etc etc... no. Also, all those hacked sites that fork porn don't give a rat's tail about registering with anyone about anything. Try searching Google for the latest craze (whatever is spiking their search top 10 list) and you're bound to pull up a few of those hacked sites.
Yeah, and these 'hacked' sites are really going to be bothered about going through the hassle of registering for .xxx. Oh wait..... No they won't.
There'll always be those who won't follow any best practices or guidelines, but you know what? The Internet is an adult world, no-one ever said it was safe to let kids browse unsupervised. There'll always be some pages that get through the content filter, but .xxx isn't going to change that.
It's a money grab pure and simple
It might be like viagra. Most of the time when you actually see the word spelled correctly, it ISN'T a sales offer. The sellers are so used to "disguising" the work, that the actual word now is the most accurate, and has the least offensive content.
It might even happen for the xxx domain (although I doubt it). Soon, when xxx isn't enough, they will need xxxx to make up for it and the arguments will start over again.
(*SIGH*)
If ICANN did it correctly they would tell ICM to take a hike...
Create the .xxx domain and offer to give one to every adult domain provided their .com .net etc sites redirect to .xxx automatically.
Reputable porn sites don't want kids on them and the legal problems that causes. And it would allow parents and schools to easily prevent kids from getting to most of these sites.
Charging that much for the .xxx domains is just greed and will basically assure that what good could come from this won't happen.
And religious groups complaining about this? WHY? You'd think they would be happy with having a potentially easier way of preventing access for their precious children.
It is absurd that this proposal has got so far.
99% of adult webmasters are against it, along with many public organisations.
It won't reduce porn online anymore than regular filtering already does.
So the the real intention of the xxx registrar to campaign for a virtual ghetto - where they can increase prices at will in a monopoly situation.
why? It would make blocking porn freakishly easy. Block all .xxx domains. There... the kids are safe.
I'm a Christian and I approve of this top level domain.
Do it for the children (or for making children... depending on what "it" you're talking about.
Mine's the one with the Bible+ installed on the Palm Zire in the pocket.
You may be a Christian but you are a short sighted one. First of all its very easy to filter out adult sites already but more importantly as an industry we support voluntary filtering...I dint want your kids viewing my paysites, they dont have credit cards.
My problem is the potential for government abuse, governments blocking .xxx altogether, states mandating that in order to provide ISP services you must block all .xxx domains etc.
Remember my Christian friend, the same end of the pencil that erases my smut can erase your scripture.
How does that work? I mean, sure... you keep your kids from visiting Humpty-Dumpty.xxx I don't dispute that. But what about Dirty-Crotch-Lickers.com?
Or are you somehow implying that you think that pornography will just... suddenly stop being available on any other TLD? Sorry, but dream on.
And stop worrying so much about your kids learning that sex is fun. You figured it out and they will to, no matter what you do. I'm not advocating deliberately exposing them to porn or sexuality, but there's a sliding scale of what is sensible to pretend doesn't exist. Five-year-olds won't CARE because they're hormonally disinterested. Ten-year-olds much the same. At fifteen... well, I've got news for you. Not very long ago in human history people would be married off and be at it like bunnies by fifteen.
I've been wishing this would happen for about 10 years now... I also would like the extension where ALL porn sites MUST use this TLD so that people wanting to filter porn can do so very easily.
I have this view not just because I'm a Christian, but because I work for a school. If most porn was hosted on a single TLD restricted for porn use, then filter lists would be very short and fast.
Once again I have to point out that whilst my site might deal with BDSM gear, it is *less* "pornographic" that what you can legally buy off the top shelves of newsagents.
So should I be compelled to ditch affordable-leather.co.uk and re-register as affordable-leather.xxx because my product images offend your delicate sensibilities?
Or should I do (as I have already mentioned) put appropriate warnings, register with blocking services etc and expect *YOU* as (presumably) responsible parents to do *YOUR* job of protecting *YOUR* children from material that *YOU* don't like instead of you wanting *ME* to do the job for you?
You are clearly not a refugee from a religious upbringing. Lucky you.
The religious mind relies heavily on ignorance. The faithful are not persuaded by logic, or reasonable dialogue to avoid sin. They are scared into virtue, and scared into ignorance. An enquiring mind is rarely a religious mind.
The religious mind must object to this - not to do so would be tacitly admitting it has a right to exist, and that cannot be admitted. The religious solution is not for .xxx to stay .com, it's for porn.com to be banned and cease to exist.
It is an amusing irony that the religious right and the porn industry all agree on what a bad idea .xxx is - none of them for particularly good reasons however.
Personally I'm all in favour - and welcome our .xxx overlords.
While there has been plenty of speculation as to why the God Botherers are against this domain (@John Stirling, for example) it would be good to hear some first-hand opinions as to why they are opposed to it.
Personally, I think the whole idea is a waste of time as there is no suggestion that porn will be banned from other domains, so all the filtering (to protect kids, employees from sexual harassment suites etc) will have to continue. It just exists as a money maker for ICM.
And of course, classifying billions of people whom you have never met, as 'ignorant' must be the absolute apex of intellectual enlightenment.
I'll be glad when the school holidays are over, and all of the angsty 15 year old 'rebellious' crew are back in school.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
