Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government Your Rights Online Politics

XXX Top Level Domain May Still See Use 265

Posted by Zonk
from the turnaround dept.
eldavojohn writes "The contract between ICANN & ICM Registry has just been revised for procedures on using the .XXX TLD. ICM is saying that the domain should be readily available for registration as early as this summer. This means that parents will most likely have an easier time protecting their children from these sites and these sites will be more tightly regulated and easier to scrutinize by authorities. ICM also mentioned the collaboration with International Foundation for Online Responsibility."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

XXX Top Level Domain May Still See Use

Comments Filter:
  • I call dibs on... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rednip (186217) * <[rednip] [at] [gmail.com]> on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:06PM (#17502674) Journal
    I call dibs on...

    playboy.xxx
    penhouse.xxx
    sex.xxx
    movie.xxx
    and of course
    whitehouse.xxx

    Seriously, talk about a gold rush. A legimate porn tld would have users practically driven to it. I wonder if what they are going to do about the 'land grab'. At $60 a pop for every word in the dictionary, they stand to make some serious money right off the bat.

  • Clarification (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:07PM (#17502684) Journal
    ICM also mentioned the collaboration with International Foundation for Online Responsibility.
    As the article notes, the International Foundation for Online Responsibility [iffor.org] (IFFOR) is not a separate organization. Nor is it in anyway committed to online responsibility of any other nature than asking and/or requiring porn sites register in the XXX TLD.

    ICM created IFFOR with the sole intention of having the regulation of porn sites run by a community rather than a company. The name is impressive but the goals of it seem rather specific. You can look at this two ways, ICM really wants porn regulated and easily blocked because they're thinking of the children. The other angle is that ICM wants domain registration moneys. Both can be correct and most likely are.
  • by HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:08PM (#17502688)
    Seems unlikely that existing porn sites will voluntarily move from .com to .xxx domains.
  • by BlahSnarto (45250) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:13PM (#17502752)
    Anyone else worried about this?

    Authorities and officials requiring all "questionable"
    material be required to don the XXX TLD? again at brief
    glance it looks like a good idea, but in the long run it
    could be hazardous for free speech in a whole..

    Reading material:
    http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/BriefHistoryof. XXXandLinks.htm [freespeechcoalition.com]
  • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:16PM (#17502790)
    I worry about anything our government does, just on principle.
  • Filtering porn (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bob54321 (911744) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:18PM (#17502810)
    This means that parents will most likely have an easier time protecting their children from these sites
    Not that I have done extensive research or anything, the will still be a lot of porn available that is not on .XXX domains. I see how adding .XXX to a filter list will block a lot of new stuff but any kid wanting porn will get it...
  • by Harmonious Botch (921977) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:29PM (#17502902) Homepage Journal
    "I worry about anything our government does, just on principle."

    A very good priciple, IMHO.

    GP wrote:Anyone else worried about this?

    Authorities and officials requiring all "questionable"
    material be required to don the XXX TLD? again at brief
    glance it looks like a good idea, but in the long run it
    could be hazardous for free speech in a whole..


    It looks like an attempt to cordon off the virtual areas in which free speech is permitted, similar to the real-world designated protest areas that one finds near political conventions. It is a trend that allows governments to say, yes you still have free speech, but you have to say it here. Then they can slowly restrict the designated areas - both virtual and real - until free speech is squished down to nothing.
  • by Chandon Seldon (43083) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:48PM (#17503060) Homepage

    Why should anyone have a right to a new domain name just because they have some other domain name?

    Just because you have "news.com" or "boobs.net" doesn't mean you own the words "news" or "boobs". If you're going to give favored access to existing domain holders, there's no public advantage whatsoever to adding new TLDs - it doesn't expand the name space, it just takes a bunch of cash from existing companies and gives it to the new registrar.

  • Re:if only (Score:5, Insightful)

    by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:55PM (#17503126)
    they would then REQUIRE any and all illicit sexual content on the web to use .xxx

    Just two questions:
    Who defines illicit sexual content?
    Who is the worldwide enforcer?
  • by Nkwe (604125) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:57PM (#17503136)
    Who gets how many dollars per registration?
  • by 1u3hr (530656) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @10:04PM (#17503204)
    The submitter, or Slashdot editors, say "This means that parents will most likely have an easier time protecting their children..." (this is nowhere in TFA).

    This is bullshit. How does creating a NEW domain for porn protect anyone? Only if at the same time porn is made illegal everywhere else, something that is not publicly advocated by the sponsors of .xxx. Though it's suspected that's an objective. However, no one has been able to clean porn out of any TLD and this remains impossible to do except as a symbolic and empty "We're protecting children from porn" statement. The only benefit of this new domain is the registrars who will collect $60 per year for all those existing porn sites who will be blackmailed into buying a corresponding .xxx domain to protect their brand from typosquatters. No one will set up a site solely on .xxx, a formula to be blocked by default from many users; they'll all just redirect to .coms or CC TLDs. No one will be "protected" from porn at all.

  • Yes, it does. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday January 07, 2007 @10:18PM (#17503314)
    Why should anyone have a right to a new domain name just because they have some other domain name?

    So that it won't turn into a "gold rush" with lots of "squatters" fighting over it. If someone has already gone to the effort to develop whitehouse.com as a porn site, then why not make it easier for everyone and give them first shot at whitehouse.xxx?

    If you're going to give favored access to existing domain holders, there's no public advantage whatsoever to adding new TLDs - it doesn't expand the name space, it just takes a bunch of cash from existing companies and gives it to the new registrar.

    Adding a new TLD will also move "a bunch of cash" to the "new registrar". The only question is who will provide that cash.

    And it does "expand the name space". It is a new TLD. Go ahead and register slashdot.xxx if you want to. But I'd still prefer to give CmdrTaco first shot at it.

    What you probably meant is that it won't add any new porn sites. That is probably correct. But it really does not matter. Anyone who wants to set up a porn site right now can do so.

    All this will do is allow the legitimate porn sites to redirect their sites to the .xxx domain and make it easier for schools and such to block them.

    It won't solve the whole problem, but it will allow the legitimate porn sites to "protect the children" without subjecting them to squatters trying to drive up the price.

    Although I still believe that this would be better served as *.xxx.us instead.
  • by spiritraveller (641174) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @10:47PM (#17503516)
    Seems unlikely that existing porn sites will voluntarily move from .com to .xxx domains.

    They wouldn't have to.

    If they set up a permanent redirect, they can keep their .com domains, but the filter on a parent's computer would prevent the redirect from working.
  • by Frogbert (589961) <[frogbert] [at] [gmail.com]> on Sunday January 07, 2007 @10:51PM (#17503568)
    Wouldn't it be better to have a .kid domain name. And only give that to sites are are deemed suitable to be viewed by kids?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07, 2007 @10:51PM (#17503570)

    Seems unlikely that existing porn sites will voluntarily move from .com to .xxx domains.

    Everybody keeps saying this, but it is in total opposition to the facts. There's loads of porn sites that give free advertising for filter software and voluntarily comply with various filtering standards. Believe it or not, but they are in the business of making money - and kids without credit cards aren't exactly profitable, they are just a waste of bandwidth - or worse, if the kid gets hold of a credit card and they get fraudulent payments.

    So please, leave the head-sand burying rendezvous to the religious nuts and pay attention to the facts. Plenty of pornographers want this.

  • Easier != Perfect (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nick_davison (217681) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @11:10PM (#17503714)
    "This means that parents will most likely have an easier time protecting their children..."

    One porn site moves to the .xxx domain.

    A parent blocks .xxx domains.

    That's one more site than would be blocked otherwise. Thus, by definition, easier. Not perfect but better than not at all.

    Most porn sites really don't want kids hitting them up - they just suck bandwidth and don't have credit cards to convert in to paying subscribers anyway. If sites like playboy.com then become simple redirects over - with .xxx blocked PCs unable to make the redirect - it does cut down on the number of ways a kid can stumble across porn and thus, even if not perfect, it does make it easier for parents to limit access.

    Seatbelts don't prevent car accidents. They don't even save all lives in cars that have accidents. But they do still make surviving "easier". Just because something's not perfect doesn't mean it's not an improvement. The same holds true for .xxx as a tool for limiting porn access.
  • Re:Yes, it does. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Propaganda13 (312548) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @11:13PM (#17503732)
    So .com is supposed to get the first choice? There are sites that started out as .org and .net that have come to be known by those extensions, but eventually purchased .com to protect their name. Slashdot.org and cmdrtaco.net are two such sites and others like freshmeat.net have only the .net domain.

    As for using .us, etc., what about sites that are not country specific like slashdot.org or international business and organizations. Also country domains make it easier to censor based on geography.

    I've always felt that tld's forced companies and individuals to buy as many tld's as possible. While .xxx gives the porn industry another way to self-censor and makes the registries more money, it doesn't solve any domain name issues.
  • What motivation? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by daeg (828071) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @11:14PM (#17503744)
    Why would any profitable porn website voluntarily move to a new domain? If you were, say, cnn.com, and a new .news TLD opened up, would you move to cnn.news? Hell no. Even if cnn.com simply redirected to cnn.news, you're losing years and millions of dollars worth of branding and recognition. How often do you go back to Google when looking for porn? I doubt very often, you probably go to some indexing website catered to adult websites instead -- that's big-time branding and worth big-time cash.

    Also, dividing what some in society see a deviance is just asking for problems down the road related to censorship and restricted access. "Oh, you wanted .xxx access with your cable modem? That's another $15/month."
  • by ThePopeLayton (868042) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @11:57PM (#17504058)
    They don't want little kids staring at this anymore then parents do

    I find this hard to believe as the number of porn sites that use terms like: Pokemon, nintendo, yugiyo, etc. is growing rapidly. Not to mention the videos available to download entitled things like : Harry Potter, Spiderman etc.. which just turn out to be porn movies. So you are right the industry isn't stupid, its rather intellegent. Get the kids hooked while there young and you'll have a customer for 70 years.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08, 2007 @12:25AM (#17504244)
    Or better yet, how about realizing that a kid accidentally clicking on a porn site and then hitting the back button isn't gonna hurt them?
  • Flawed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mqduck (232646) <mqduck AT mqduck DOT net> on Monday January 08, 2007 @12:39AM (#17504320)
    Forgive me if someone has already made this point, but wouldn't the .xxx TLD, designed to be blocked by uptight people, be the last place a porn site would want to live?
  • by fyngyrz (762201) * on Monday January 08, 2007 @01:25AM (#17504584) Homepage Journal
    I dont know whats more sad the notion that creating a red light district for the internet could somehow be seen repressing sexuality or just the idea that for many pornography=sexuality.

    (a) The notion is that putting everything sexual into a slot where one simple action at law can force one simple action at the DNS that shuts it all down is the problem -- it has nothing to do with the name. What is depressing to me is that you can't see it coming.

    (b) It doesn't matter in the least if some people's idea is that pornography == sexuality. The important idea is that you don't get to tell me, and I don't get to tell you, what is interesting, stimulating, erotic or otherwise. Sexuality is personal. You concentrate on yours, everyone else will concentrate on theirs, and there won't be any reason for you to be depressed. As soon as you being to think that your (romantic, idealistic, whatever) idea of sexuality is "the thing for everyone", you've become the enemy of the people and then you have a reason to be depressed.

    Comprende?

    Most would object to an adult bookstore moving in next door to their house so why should the internet be any different.

    Because we're trying to use the new environment to move away from victorian (and worse) notions of self-appointed moral police proscribing everyone else's idea of what is OK, even if they're in the majority.

    In real life we create zoning laws to...

    Let me fix that for you: ...create ghettos and put a lance right through the heart of equality.

    I fail to see what is bad about it. If your internet provider is planning to block content at the ISP level and you dont want them to...switch providers.

    And what do we do when the maniacs in congress legislate the ghetto out of existence? The political system is rigged; you know it and I know it; so if we let them back these people into this corner, what happens when they take that inevitable next step... "for the children"?

    Frankly the idea of not having to worry that mispelling a url is going to end up with something on the screen that neither I nor my kids need to see is appealing. I would imagine many parents as well as those whose sexuality has expanded beyond jerking off to the playboy channel would agree.

    Yes, I would imagine the whole bloody bunch of you who have delegated the upbringing of your children in a padded world will be very pleased indeed. owning up to the responsibility of having children is so... tedious. Isn't it much nicer when the government does it for you?

    First they came for the pornographers. But I was not a pornographer, so I said nothing.

    Then they came for the others. But I was not them, either. I remained silent.

    Then they came for me. And there was no one left to speak for me.

    With apologies to the WWII ear personage who penned the original.

  • Dot Why? Why? Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NetSettler (460623) * <kent-slashdot@nhplace.com> on Monday January 08, 2007 @01:41AM (#17504668) Homepage Journal

    wouldn't the .xxx TLD, designed to be blocked by uptight people, be the last place a porn site would want to live?

    The problem isn't with the true .xxx folks, who probably don't really care and figure their market will find them. The problem is with people who have content that is ambiguous and only "arguably" covered by this. The problem is there is no .PG, .PG-13, .R, .X before .XXX ... which means there will suddenly be a binary division between "good" and "bad". The world is not so black and white.

    The real problem is that there is "middle ground", and there must be at minimum three systems, not too: Things unambiguously acceptable, things unambiguously outrageous, and things in between (i.e., hybrid). By making only two groups, you necessarily merge the hybrid with either the protectedthe outrageous. To say that anything not for highly protected people is outrageous is ridiculous and a sudden huge shift to the conservative that seems unlikely to succeed, though it would be a stretch to say that nothing like that would ever be tried--consider Prohibition.

    Also, since it's defined in a way that makes it sound like you're in with scum, anyone who voluntarily enters is practically signing a confession that they think their ambiguous content to be depraved. I think that's the saddest of all: That someone who is just worried they might offend someone is basically forced to stand in the street and wave a sign saying "kick me" as their reward for being nice.

    It would actually be an infinitely saner thing to create a .G or .KIDS domain where people could move to who want to live in a bubble. There would then be no confusion about who belonged there: anyone who wanted to live by a lot of rules and wanted to be around others of like kind. And there would be very little motivation to cheat, since people who like that kind of thing would rush to it. There's no stigma, after all.

    Nor are the standards for what must be in this domain clear in a way that makes sense globally. It seems to me something that will not be meaningfully able to be administered globally, since some countries that think nothing of certain controversial issues will not require .XXX, and it will just end up a casual tax on those who do choose to use it.

    Or else it will be be the Internet version of McCarthyism, and the .XXX will gradually expand to be the list of everyone... until it breaks down and you can't watch a PG movie without it being .XXX and people say "why is this closet so crowded?" and demand to be let out.

    None of the present plan makes any sense, really. So why are they doing it? The unspoken truth, of course, is that this is not about Net safety. It is about dictating morality. And why is that? Perhaps because they're being unable to sell the same morality voluntarily.

    The strange thing to me is that this is all about sex. What about violence? Will there be a .MURDER TLD for people who think killing others is bad? Will the evening news go there? What about unpopular wars? Or just people who are trying to save young women from unscrupulous coathanger-wielding men in alleys or trying to save the world from overpopulation?

  • by LittleBigLui (304739) on Monday January 08, 2007 @03:38AM (#17505370) Homepage Journal
    porn.com.xxx, porn.net.xxx.

    I should have posted this AFTER registering com.xxx and net.xxx, really.
  • by Eivind (15695) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Monday January 08, 2007 @03:47AM (#17505416) Homepage
    I dont know whats more sad the notion that creating a red light district for the internet could somehow be seen repressing sexuality

    It works something like this:

    • Open new .XXX TLD.
    • Suggest "pornographic" sites should go there.
    • *DEMAND* that now that a .XXX tld exists, pornographic sites should be removed from other (mainly .com) tlds.
    • Pass laws that say you're "endangering minors" if you put pornographic content anywhere else than .xxx
    • Insist that your definition of pornography is the only One True one, thus rendering my schoolbooks from when I was 12 pornographic.
    • Insist that schools, libraries and public institutions block .xxx

    Separation is the first step towards discrimination and censorship. After you've collected the "bad stuff" in one place under one convenient label, it's much easier to take action against it.

    or just the idea that for many pornography=sexuality.

    Pornography is obviously a subset of human sexuality. Whats one persons porn is another persons art anyway. (the courts in norway, for example, recently granted VAT-excemption for strip-shows for the reason that they're not principally different from other kinds of stage-performances.(and there's no VAT on culture in Norway))

    Most would object to an adult bookstore moving in next door to their house so why should the internet be any different.

    If *ANY* bookstore opens where the zoning-rules say "residential housing" people will protest. If the zoning-rules allow normal bookstores, they should certainly allow adult bookstores in the exact same location. Indeed that is the case where I live -- "adult" shops of all kinds are found exactly where other "non-adult" shops are. (The Mall, main shopping-streets in town, shopping-centres etc)

    Besides, the argument is stupid. You run into your neighbours in RL. It's immediately obvious to everyone who visits you that there's a trash-incinerator next to your house. This has a real negative impact.

    It doesn't have much of any impact to know that your domain coolstuff.com shares a TLD with trashincinerator.com or stripclub.com, the 3 names aren't "neighbours" in any reasonable sense of the word -- certainly the parallells to RL are absent.

    In real life we create zoning laws to keep that stuff where its both easily accessed by those that want it and easily avoided by those who dont, on the internet we can do that with a top level domain if its done properly.

    Where I live there *IS* no zone for "shops-but-no-adult-ones-please", nor should there be, and if there where I would indeed protest it loudly. (but it'd be unconstitutional anyway, so I doubt it'd happen)

    Secondly, you make the elemental mistake of assuming there *exists* a simple clearly-delimiting line as to what is ".xxx" and what isn't. Who is to decide ?

    Third, why the singling out of sexuality ? I object to this on principal grounds. Where is .violence ? How about .racism ? Are we gonna get a .religious or .republicans anytime soon ?

    I fail to see what is bad about it. If your internet provider is planning to block content at the ISP level and you dont want them to...switch providers. Frankly the idea of not having to worry that mispelling a url is going to end up with something on the screen that neither I nor my kids need to see is appealing. I would imagine many parents as well as those whose sexuality has expanded beyond jerking off to the playboy channel would agree.

    I don't see how it's relevant, but I am indeed a parent (3 kids, actually). I would *NOT* feel "comfortable" knowing that some US-based (lets be frank here!) likely religious-dominated "focus-group" decides what is and what isn't "agreeable". I'll like it even less once schools, libraries etc start filtering (

  • by fyngyrz (762201) * on Monday January 08, 2007 @04:13AM (#17505554) Homepage Journal
    So not wanting to have to explain to his 5 year old why that one woman was putting her fist in the ass of another woman is somehow wanting to bring them up in a padded world

    No. Not at all. You missed the point entirely. Not being there to see that it doesn't happen, or arranging that specifically in your little world, it can't happen, is depending on someone else to do YOUR job, at the expense of everyone else's freedoms.

    If, for whatever reason, you want your kid to be free to sit at the computer without encountering the real world, use a whitelist system to control browsing. No accidents will happen (unless YOU screw up the whitelist.) That's all you need to do. When your child is adult enough for you to accept the idea that they will not implode, become perverted, etc., upon encountering adult play, then you can open the whitelist. Or not; you are, after all, the responsible individual.

    Take responsibility as a parent; you can have as much control as you like. Nothing is stopping you. However, if you decide that the government should control everything so that the world artificially looks the way you think it should for the benefit of your offspring, regardless of what anyone else thinks, then you've become the enemy of freedom. My kids don't need to have your ideals inflicted on them. If you try, I will oppose you.

  • by fyngyrz (762201) * on Monday January 08, 2007 @04:26AM (#17505628) Homepage Journal
    But in today's internet its damn near impossible for parents to police the internet for their kids

    No - it isn't. The easy way: buy a Mac. Set up accounts for your kid(s). Whitelist where you are willing to let them go. Sit with them as much as you can and expand the whitelist as appropriate. Whitelist their email contacts and their chat contacts. The result? There is no problem. They're as constrained as you want them to be, or not. Nothing horrifying can be accessed unless YOU say it can. This is easily done, and you should do it. As opposed to trying to get the entire world changed to reflect your sensibilities. I'll back you 100% as long as you're just adjusting your kids as you see fit. The very second you start to try to adjust mine, you're out of line. You can do this with your entire home network, regardless of what OS you use, by directing all HTTP and other access through squid on linux or something similar; we use squid at work to keep surfing to work-related sites. It is just as effective at making a whitelist for your kids, it just takes a little study. You wouldn't let your kids be root, would you?

    There just has to be some compromise on both sides, is that really too much to ask?

    Yes, sometimes it is. Freedom of speech is more important than victorian sensibilities (or lack thereof.) Every time we have "compromised" our rights, we have been screwed. No more.

  • by brunes69 (86786) <slashdot@nosPam.keirstead.org> on Monday January 08, 2007 @09:35AM (#17507240) Homepage

    This means that parents will most likely have an easier time protecting their children from these sites and these sites will be more tightly regulated and easier to scrutinize by authorities.

    I can't even count the number of ways this statement is blatently false.

    Well, here's a few:

    • A new XXX TLD does nothing to remove porn from existing TLDs
    • It is trivial for anyone to show porn on any non-XXX TLD, or for that matter, a subdirectory of such TLD.
    • People who want porn know where to get it. People who don't want porn will only encounter it via accidental search or spam email, neither of which this new TLD will do anyting to prevent.

    OK... let's pretend for a sec that all of the above is solved... all a kid who wants access to a .XXX TLD has to do is discover the IP address of it via a WHOIS lookup or other means, then create a DynDNS domain name pointing at this new IP. You think this is too complicated fro a kid to do? I know kids in elementary who have their own DynDNS hosts. It's not rocket science.

    Here's a newsflash - since the advent of photography, kids have had porn. Hell, even before then hey had nude sketches of women. Kids have ALWAYS had porn. What guy on here hadn't seen a playboy by the time they were 12?

Heuristics are bug ridden by definition. If they didn't have bugs, then they'd be algorithms.

Working...