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This discussion has been archived.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&gmail,com> on Sunday January 07, 2007 @08:06PM (#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.

    • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday January 07, 2007 @08:13PM (#17502746)
      Instead of opening it up like that, anyone who has a .com should be allowed to register the .xxx version at the same price as their .com address.

      There, no "gold rush". Even though it probably means giving up some profit, it's the right thing to do.

      There may be some cases where .com, .org and .net are all registered to different people and they would all want the .xxx version. In that case, I'd recommend a simple lottery.

      But all of this is stupid anyway. The Internet is more international now. We should be dropping new 3 letter TLD names and sticking with .us etc.
      • by Chandon Seldon (43083) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @08:48PM (#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: (Score:2, Informative)

          by epee1221 (873140)
          Why should anyone have a right to a new domain name just because they have some other domain name?
          The intent seems to be to move all the porn to the .xxx TLD, not just make a new place to put porn. So porn.com could move to porn.xxx.
          But then where would we put porn.net? Of course, it is doubtful that porn.com wouldn't want to keep both porn.com and porn.xxx, so you have a point there.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by LittleBigLui (304739)
            porn.com.xxx, porn.net.xxx.

            I should have posted this AFTER registering com.xxx and net.xxx, really.
        • Yes, it does. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:18PM (#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.
          • Re:Yes, it does. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Propaganda13 (312548) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @10:13PM (#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.
          • by rawtatoor (560209) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @11:21PM (#17504224) Journal

            I wish you could have made your point with out mentioning slashdot.xxx I'm not even sure what the nightmares I'm going to have because of that entail.

      • by eric76 (679787)
        So eBay would own x.xxx?
    • ICM somehow got the .xxx franchise, based on WHAT? I'd like to see the truth there.

      Anyway, it's a dead asset, unless they can cash in on the monopoly money!

      ICANN will do the right thing as they always have.

      Creating a new TLD will do nothing except enrich the franchisee, and make a bunch of flat-earthers in Flyover Country yowl a lot.
    • by Duncan3 (10537)
      Screw that.

      disney.xxx

      You can make 100m easy extorting... er offering them buying it back.

      Like all non-com domains, this is just another corporate shakedown.
      • by omeomi (675045)
        disney.xxx You can make 100m easy extorting... er offering them buying it back.

        Until they sue you because they have a trademark on the name...Whether or not they're in the right doesn't matter too much, because you stand no chance of defending yourself against Disney without going broke...
  • Clarification (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Sunday January 07, 2007 @08:07PM (#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 hackstraw (262471) *
      First, I think that besides country TLDs they are stupid.

      Second, being that others think that TLDs are interesting or at least profitable. Why isn't there a XXX TLD?

      If there are rediculusly stupid ones like .biz, .name, .info, .museum, why in the world is there not already a .xxx one? At least then I can find some porn, because its next to impossible now with the existing TLDS (/sarcasm for those who have no sense of humor :)
  • by HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @08:08PM (#17502688)
    Seems unlikely that existing porn sites will voluntarily move from .com to .xxx domains.
    • I guess they'll register an .xxx while still keeping their .com domain.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Quzak (1047922)
        Yes, they would prolly use their .com as the front door for their .xxx

        Enforcement is gonna be fun, I can already see the violations of free speech and censorship happening already.
    • by spiritraveller (641174) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:47PM (#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 Alsee (515537)
        PreScript: The rant below is not directed at the parent poster. His technical comment

        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

        The porn company is better off picking up the duplicate .xxx site and just redirecting THAT back to their .com site.

        Which just highlights exactly why establishing .xxx is a rotten and harmful move in the first place. You get all the censortrolls whining Waaaaaaa it didn't work!
    • by dreamt (14798)
      No, but they will _WANT_ to move their content there. I think that most sites would have a much easier time. Legit xxx sites want their sites to be filtered from child access. It makes their legal threats much lower. They will want to keep their .com as a front-end, but keep all XXX content there.
  • by BlahSnarto (45250) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @08:13PM (#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 @08:16PM (#17502790)
      I worry about anything our government does, just on principle.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        "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
        • Incrementalism at work again. You really have to keep an eye on these guys. Incredible, really ... they just can't seem to leave well enough alone.

          But I have to say, between the GP's nick of "BlahSnarto" and your "Harmonious Botch" I'm having a hard time keeping a straight face.
          • by Alsee (515537)
            "between the GP's nick of 'BlahSnarto' and your 'Harmonious Botch' I'm having a hard time keeping a straight face", says ScrewMaster.

            -
    • Agreed. Specially since off course a lot of places are gonna block . domains right away. Off course, sites will have a mirror at a .com or .net or .whatever so everyone can access them. Eventually some republican will try to organize the "tubes" of the internet and make . domains for "cuestionable" content mandatory. The definition of cuestionable will be broad and actually very cuestionable =). many ISPs will reduce access to . by charging extra or limiting bandwidth or banning it all
    • .XXX = Worst* Idea Ever

      * Ok it isn't the worst idea ever, but it is up there--the only way to get it to work is to implement censorship. I find it amazing that anybody who is a free speech advocate would criticize opposition to this domain. The pressure that the Bush Administration brought against this TLD [foxnews.com] was one of best free speech actions in 2006. Heck, even Markos Moulitsas Zúniga [dailykos.com] should be giving praise for stopping the .XXX TLD.

  • Filtering porn (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bob54321 (911744) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @08:18PM (#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 bunions (970377)
      I view it as the porn industry protecting itself. I don't think that any legitimate business -wants- underage kids looking at their wide selection of Mongolian Goat Porn. Setting up shop under a xxx banner is a pretty clear indicator that they're adult content, and since filtering on a .xxx tld is so impossibly easy to do it's a pretty clear indicator that the business has taken all reasonable steps to prevent underage kids from gaining access.
      • And that is precisely why this is completely unworkable, and cannot achieve the aims of what it is trying to do. Not all "porn" resides on a website that belongs to someone in the porn industry.
        • by bunions (970377)
          of course not. Getting porn off the internet is, like someone who I can't remember once said, is like getting pee out of a pool. But it IS productive in that it creates a simple, clear demarcation between where general and adult content belongs.
          • by Alsee (515537)
            Getting porn off the internet is, like someone who I can't remember once said, is like getting pee out of a pool.

            Yeah, a memorable and genius quote. It's from the old TV show NewsRadio, said by Joe Garelli. But it wasn't a comment about porn, it was a comment about trying to take back anything once it has leaked onto the internet. The exact quote:

            You can't take something off the Internet! It's like taking pee out of a swimming pool. Once it's in there, it's in there.

            A perfect example being the idiot Braz [theregister.co.uk]

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by j00r0m4nc3r (959816)
        I would like to hear more about the Mongolian Goat Porn. Email me pls.
  • .
    All the porn sites are going to do is redirect the .xxx domains onto their established .com domains. There has to be some way to force porn off the .com TLD. Probably the only thing to do that will be an army of faeries riding in armor mounted on flying unicorns. ( for those lacking a sarcasm detector, it means it's never going to happen )
    • There has to be some way to force porn off the .com TLD.

      It's pretty easy actually. All they have to do is make it against the terms of service for the .com registration and the next time registration comes around make everyone put up a $500 deposit on their .com domain registration as a bounty. If anyone reports a legitimate occurrence of pornography on that web site, they get the $500 bounty and your domain gets put into on-hold status until you've cleared away the offending content to the satisfaction

      • by bucky0 (229117)
        So, youtube, myspace, fark....oh, anything that lets users post content can be shutdown just by posting a pornographic image and telling the cops?

        It seems like a good idea, but I think it would be ultimately unworkable.
      • by tehdaemon (753808)
        Sweet idea! A $500 reward for hacking a website and leaving no incriminating evidence.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ironsides (739422)
      All the porn sites are going to do is redirect the .xxx domains onto their established .com domains. There has to be some way to force porn off the .com TLD.

      I'm gonna take a wild guess at something for this. However, it would require blocking software.

      No sane operator of a porn site is not going to register their .com/.org/.net sites in the .XXX domain. So, what software could do, is check the .com/.org/.net site and see if it resolves the same as the .XXX domain. If so, then you would know that it
    • by 1u3hr (530656)
      Probably the only thing to do that will be an army of faeries riding in armor mounted on flying unicorns.

      Sounds like a job for Maxwell's Demon.

    • All the porn sites are going to do is redirect the .xxx domains onto their established .com domains

      Actually, I expect it should work the other way around. blah.com will redirect to blah.xxx. This way, existing bookmarks will work and owners of domains will retain their valuable domain names. The redirection to blah.xxx will allow simple filtering on the PC (or upstream) to block access to porn.

      I may have missed something, but I think that's workable.
  • To protect the children, we must enable every cable and satellite company to provide xxx content on channel 69!

    Ummm...Are we going to restrict other channels from carrying pornographic content?

    No. It's technically difficult and would be expensive and violate the first amendment.

    Doesn't this just give the porn companies more porn channels while doing nothing to censor kids (which is unethical anyways)?
  • Isn't the underlying problem of this really the centralized nature of DNS?
  • by Nkwe (604125) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @08:57PM (#17503136)
    Who gets how many dollars per registration?
  • by 1u3hr (530656) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:04PM (#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.

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

      by nick_davison (217681)
      "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 block
      • by 1u3hr (530656)
        One porn site moves to the .xxx domain. A parent blocks .xxx domains.

        Why does this site move?

        it does cut down on the number of ways a kid can stumble across porn

        The reverse, it will just create a NEW area of porn. A magnet for kids to pass around hacks to access.

  • Sure, i want to sign up for that deal.. no thanks.
  • by Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:35PM (#17503424) 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

    NO IT DOESN'T. Please at least pretend you've read RFC 3675 [ietf.org].

  • by TheLink (130905)
    What's all this silly talk about .xxx making it harder to get porn.

    Anyone thinking straight will know that .xxx will make it easier to find and get porn (as if it's not easy enough already).

    Note: I'm not arguing against the .xxx TLD though. I personally think ICANN sucks, but looking at the other alternatives it seems like anyone who's likely to take over from ICANN would suck even more.

    You all should just let me take over from ICANN :).
  • by Frogbert (589961) <frogbertNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday January 07, 2007 @09:51PM (#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?
  • What motivation? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by daeg (828071) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @10:14PM (#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."
  • This is WAAAAYYYYYYY too late to make a difference helping parents.

  • Flawed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mqduck (232646) <[mqduck] [at] [mqduck.net]> on Sunday January 07, 2007 @11:39PM (#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?
    • Dot Why? Why? Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NetSettler (460623) * <kent-slashdot@nhplace.com> on Monday January 08, 2007 @12:41AM (#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 brunes69 (86786) <slashdot@@@keirstead...org> on Monday January 08, 2007 @08:35AM (#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?

No problem is so large it can't be fit in somewhere.

Working...