Why Would The Gov't Hide Documents About A .xxx Domain?
from the please-explain dept
The back and forth over the potential for a .xxx domain reserved for porn has been discussed at length, though, it's still rather amusing to see one set of politicians who believe it's a good thing, as it would keep porn away from children, and another set of politicians who believe it's a bad thing because it somehow "legitimizes" porn (this would be known as the "head-in-sand" position, considering that porn online hardly needs to be "legitimized" at this point). Either way, the Bush administration came down on the "head-in-sand" side after receiving pressure from family groups. That resulted in pressure on ICANN who, despite claiming independence from the US gov't, rejected the proposal after originally being for it.The folks behind the .xxx proposal were (understandably) livid, and have filed Freedom of Information requests to find out what kind of discussions the gov't had in determining its position. Oddly, while some documents were released, the State Department and Commerce Department withheld many documents relating to discussions over the .xxx domain. A lawsuit was quickly filed, and a court has now ruled that the government doesn't have to reveal all the documents unless it's been shown that it blocked .xxx for "nefarious purposes." I had no idea that was a component of making FoIA decisions. Having a separate .xxx domain seems totally unnecessary (and just a way for registrars to soak up some extra money), but that still doesn't explain why the government felt the need to not release certain documents explaining its position. Kind of ironic that this comes out during Sunshine Week, which is supposed to highlight gov't openness.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: .xxx. bush administration, freedom of information
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why deny the request for an XXX domain?
I am all for a seperate domain!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why deny the request for an XXX domain?
I highly doubt any effort to forcefully migrate adult sites would be successful, as there are too many different interpretations of what constitutes an "adult" web site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why deny the request for an XXX domain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why deny the request for an XXX domain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THIS IS NOT A LAW, IT'S MERELY A DOMAIN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why deny the request for an XXX domain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why deny the request for an XXX domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why deny the request for an XXX domain?
2) Google gives you search results which are somewhat dependent on the stuff you have searched for before. Shame on you. I searched for 'toys' (with the adult content filter not even turned on, no less) and there were nothing but results about actual Toys'R'Us(first result)-style toys for at least the first several pages - and then I got bored looking.
3) So a) turn the adult-content-filter on, and b) Don't leave your searching-for-adult-toys Google account logged in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why deny the request for an XXX domain?
Is my face red.
Ooops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why deny the request for an XXX domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why? It's simple
This judge must be another Bush appointee, making up stuff ("nefarious purposes") as he goes along. This current "government" ignores rules that don't suit its purposes, all of which are nefarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bah!
tends to render the FoIA impotent. I hope
it is appealed and over turned.
Can't they just make up some plausible story
claiming nefariousness? Seems like judges
just make stuff up. What's good for the goose...
Sad to see the Bush monomania represented so
quickly, only the second post. Study history,
looser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bah!
stupid linebreaks randomly
interspersed throughout
your post
?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bah!
For what it's worth, you meant to spell "loser," loser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bah!
Hah! If all you can attack is one spelling
error your position is pitifully weak, loser.
Thank you for the correction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FoIA
Isn't that part of the purpose of filing it? To find out if the government tried to block it for nerfarious purposes?
I thought they could only blow FoIA requests if it was state secret of some sort?
I need to read the complete FoIA at some point here. Apparently it has insanely less free of information parts to it than I thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Anonymous Coward number 5
Creating a seperate domain would ease the ability to protect our children as legitimate sites would voluntarily create thier sites in a domain that was accessable by only thier target audience. Others would hopfully follow suit. Granted we all know there would be those that would not but then the blocker programs and search engines could spend more time looking for the rogue sites and less time dealing with legitimate adult entertainment businesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Anonymous Coward number 5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Anonymous Coward number 5
Even legitimate sites wouldn't "migrate" to .xxx unless required to, they would expand into it, registering, e.g., both JensToyShoy.xxx and JensToyShop.com. As has already been pointed out, a US law requiring them to register in .xxx only would be easily sidestepped by registering in .com from Sweden or another more sex-positive nation. In the end, the only real effect would be to make porn easier to find for those who wish to do so (as if it isn't easy enough already) without removing any of it from the places where it's already found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To Anonymous Coward number 5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's 100% easier(in terms of technical skill and CPU power) to block a domain name than scan each individual page for adult content.
Adult content sites are all for moving to the .xxx domain since it makes it much easier to find them. Yes, porn is easy to find but if it has its own TLD then there is ZERO chance that someone was looking for non-adult content on that TLD.
Biggest question is, why the hell do you have a problem with something as simple as the creation of a TLD? It's not as if it is going to affect your every day life. Unless, that is, you are afraid that your activities will be easily discovered by someone who disapproves of your porn habits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give up the dream. The sooner your kids learn to LOOK AWAY when they see something they oughtnt, the sooner theyll be fully matured citizens of the net who can't get caught by goatse tricks. But you wouldn't know anything about that (I think I can safely say) because you guys havent yet learned that important life lesson. There is some disturbing stuff out there--LOOK AWAY. You can't lock it up and you can't make it go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parents
Then open an account with OpenDNS.com
You can selectively block types of sites or black/whitelist domains of your choosing. Yes stuff will slip through but that's why I monitor where they go on the web. It is not the governments job its *MY* job as a parent. Would it make it a bit easier to block? I think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey nipseyrussell
There is no such thing as a complete solution to protect our children from any dangers out there. But we still put controls and tools in society to make protection easier. We put crossing gaurds at intersection to try to protect children from getting hit, it can limit the risk from those that are following the traffic laws, but that doesnt stop a kid from getting hit by an idiot that isnt paying attention.
Adding a domain that you could blanket block from children would EASE the task of protecting our children from porn. It is not a full protection as there is no such thing, but it could make the job just a tiny bit easier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The biggest beneficiaries of .xxx would be....
Porn sites don't want to be relegated to a .xxx ghetto after having spent so much time promoting their current sites. Non-porn sites don't want to see their brand associated with porn and will attempt to pre-emptively purchase the relevant domains (e.g., ibm.xxx) to forestall that. Domain name speculators (i.e., scum) will try to beat them to it, then hold the domains hostage and use extortion to jack up the price. Censorware companies will toss ".xxx" in their filters and pretend that's useful. Spammers and phishers will jump in and register as many as they possibly can for the same reason they did so with .biz and .info -- both so completely overrun with abuser domains that they're worthless.
And every one of these activities will make the registrars' cash registers ring. "Follow the money."
As to what do vis-a-vis your kids and online porn: be a parent. Don't abdicate your job to a piece of software, especially since censorware is peddled by people whose interests are not the same as yours. (Presumably, you're trying to educate and protect your kids. They're only interested in profits, and couldn't care less about your kids.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The biggest beneficiaries of .xxx would be....
Spammers won't jump in the game if the sites cost enough. The reason they bought into the .info TLD's is because they were cheap to register($0.99 per year). I've got acquaintances that are spammers and know this better than anyone you will ever likely meet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the Bush administration came down on the "head-in-sand" side after receiving pressure from family groups.
This seems to be their standard way of dealing with bad news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nefarious only??
What the Hell is a judge doing ruling on FOIA requests, anyway? It's our information. Is this one of those new "national security" features?
I agree with sonofdot, it's a problem with mixing religion and government.
Dear Judges:
If you want to belong to a church or any other private organization that hides what it's doing from you, great.
But don't you dare try to apply those policies to our government. Try using the rule of law, as defined in our Constitution and its Amendments.
I do understand that having been a judge for a long time causes problems with memory and sense of duty, and that you probably live a privileged life and are insulated from most of normal society. That's no excuse for inventing new law, or interpreting existing law in a ways that suit you.
Sincerely,
The Citizens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WWW to XXX
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WWW to XXX
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WWW to XXX
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WWW to XXX
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.xxx seperate domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slightly off topic, perhaps.
Discuss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slightly off topic, perhaps.
When is the magical moment when a breast stops being a food source and becomes The Bogeyman That Will Destroy Your Child's Psyche If He Sees Another One Before Turning Eighteen? And what causes this sudden transformation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slightly off topic, perhaps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you sure?
disney.xxx
nicktoons.xxx
this means, for example, disney would have to register disney.xxx or risk some 'nefarious' group registering it. Now the xxx domain no longer contains just adult content. Some adult sites might register the xxx domain, but will probably also keep the com domain. Even if you make it illegal to host adult content on a com domain the com domain will exists with a simple link to the xxx domain site. Makes the whole idea worthless in terms of any kind of seperation of content.
All this does is line the pockets of registrars (which is what it all boils down to).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you sure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Are you sure?
No sense registering a domain name that is not accessible by your target audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: Are you sure?
Similarly, thewashingtonpostbaby.com, thewashingtonpostchristian.com, thewashingtonpostlife.com and a number of similar domains have been acquired by the Washington Post. (They previously belonged to a religious wingnut.)
Organizations may or may not care to defensively acquire domains in gTLDs like .info or .net, but I think it's very clear they'd feel strong pressure to acquire them in .xxx.
Let me point something else out that I should have mentioned in my previous message: since pornography standards are different in every county on the planet, who should be the arbiter of what goes in .xxx and what doesn't? My government? Your government? ICANN?
This leads to a larger point: the entire concept of content-specific TLDs (such as .museum, .travel) is idiotic. (Consider .info: what, domains in other TLDs don't contain "information"?) The .xxx fiasco is just the latest chapter in this ongoing saga of fictional "demand" invented by ferociously greedy registrars, and aided by the usual whining, plaintive cries of "for the children" from the usual suspects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: Are you sure?
disney.biz is currently held by some foreign company.
us is held by somebody who appears to be involved in hotels.
edu appears to be available.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'not accessible'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Save the children
The will also have sex at some point, how dare you let a child grow up and have sex, it could be at 14, 16 or 28 but they will have sex or have sexual thoughts; thats abuse.
I think anyone that has children should be banned from the Internet completely, other wise it's abuse.
at some point the sexual organs of children will develop, shame on you parents for letting this happen, you should be in Jail for that too
( yes this was sarcasm for those of you dimwitted enough to not realize it, I can't imagine why anyone would be upset about skin. But then I don't believe in hell either, so where will I end up?)
If you are so worried about sex on the net or protecting your children you have a few choices to make, one put them in a box for their entire life, or pull the plug on the net all together.
then best way to prevent this is abstinence, if it's good enough for children, it's good enough for "alleged" Parents.
SAVE THE CHILDREN, STOP HAVING THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Re: re: Are you sure?
I agree that you can't force sites to use an xxx domain, but what real substantial reason would you have to deny the option? Other then you are afraid that your mom, dad, or boss will block you from accessing the sites that you are not allowed to surf?
I have my home network tied down as tight as possible, but only a fool would think there was no way that thier child could get to an adult site. That is why when my kids do surf, it is always in mine and my wifes view rather then "down there" where they are free to do what ever they want. Sorry, I teach my kids rather then push them out sight. My kids know about the human body and sex education is something I will teach to my kids when they are ready, not a site that does quite a bit more then just show a picure of an undressed man or woman.
For the clubjenna site and others like it, I am sure they would jump at the chance to put thier page in an xxx domain. They could even create thier own search engine that would be free from standard general public censoring. They wouldnt have to worry about registering with the blocking sites just by the nature of being in a special domain. The newbies starting in the business wouldnt have to worry about who to register with and would less likely make a mistake that would cause them to be accessible by children.
For a large company having to register a couple of more domain names.... It costs joe blow off the street $6 a year to register a name, and a company like Microsoft maybe $1. Hmmm, the one or two hundred dollars a year to register simular names if they feel so inclined isnt really going to cut much into thier bottom line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: Re: re: Are you sure?
Just so one thing is clear: I'm not in the least bit concerned about how this affects my own access. ;-) The reason I oppose the .xxx proposal is that I recognize it will do absolutely nothing to protect children. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Even if we make the enormous assumption that all porn sites voluntarily move to it or are forced by some unimaginable cooperation on the part of every government on this planet, it won't do a thing...because workarounds for the filters will be available the next day. The Internet's entire architecture, at multiple levels, prevents a strategy like this from having any chance at success. It's a known failure. Today. So there's no point in running the exercise.
Moreover (revisiting that "global cooperation" idea briefly): keep in mind that standards vary so widely that a site explaining the correct method for breast self-examination -- one of the best cancer detection and prevention mechanisms available -- could easily be classified as porn in some countries. (And such sites have already been blocked by some censorware.) There's no chance at all of consensus on this.
As to costs, yes, Microsoft can fork out an extra few bucks...and so can IBM...Sun...and a kazillion other businesses. So can I, so can you, so can Mike Masnick, so can anyone who feels their brand might be affected in some way. Which is not much to us, but represents a windfall of millions to the registrars and they know it. One of the dirty little secrets of the registrar business is that the overwhelming majority of the money isn't made from the Microsofts or IBMs of the world, or you or me: it's made from serial abusers like spammers and phishers, who buy domains by the tens of thousands. Registrar policies and procedures, tactics and strategies, are largely geared toward servicing them -- because they're the best customers. This particular try (.xxx) is just another of many in the same direction.
Let me add something else. Who is going to compensate (let's say) clubjenna for forcibly taking away their .com, if it comes to that? Or if compensation isn't forthcoming, who's going to defend against the class-action litigation that will be filed shortly thereafter? And keep in mind that no matter what you think of porn, unless it's considered obscene (per judicial rulings) it's protected speech under the First Amendment, so you can't just say "we're taking your .com because your porn is illegal". It's no more so than the Gettysburg Address.
Bottom line: it is ultimately futile and foolish to rely on technological measures to keep your kids from porn. They have free time, they're bright, they're tech-savvy, and if they want it, they will find it. But if that's a concern, then the fix is easy: sit right next to them when they're online (or even in the same room). Be a parent. Supervise. Advise. Teach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boobie OK, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: Are you sure? by Steven
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see the move for xxx domain as a GOOD thing!
I hate it when I'm alone (no kids) looking for porno toys and I get kids toys...
Additionally, I believe that the porn industry WOULD be only TOO happy to accept such a move... Why? Because it will make it easier for them to not become targets of the self-righteous Catholic - Bush, and the rest of you annoying fudgers out there!
If you want to keep your kids safe... MOVE THE COMPUTER OUT OF THEIR BEDROOM!!! STOP BEING IGNORANT! STOP DEPENDING ON THE BU**SH't ADMINISTRATION to DO WHAT - YOU - AS A PARENT - SHOULD BE DOING! KEEPING AN EYE ON YOUR OWN - FUDGING KIDS!!! Do you honestly believe that this administration has made a dent in Iraqi life??? That we are CLOSE to ANY victory... REMEMBER - 4 YEARS AGO - BUSH CLAIMED VICTORY IN IRAQ!!! 5 YEARS LATER - WE ARE CLOSE TO VICTORY - AGAIN!
PEOPLE - STOP BEING STUPID!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we forgot about the other varieties....
You all think we only need a domain for superfemales???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Re: re: Re: re: Are you sure?
I also am not for forcing anyone into losing thier .com. I believe in freedom in decisions. If clubjenna decided not to move, well then the companies that block sites still have a job to do. But if they did decide to jump on board then they could truly state that they care about protecting thier content from children. Again, it is only a $6 move and they will most likely redirect from the .com for however long with a short message of "We Moved" which the redirect would automaticly be blocked to those that block the xxx domain.
You feel it will make no impact on our ability to protect our children, and you are not arguing against it due to your feeling of loosing any rights or access. You really dont lose or gain money by the option.
So, by this you argue against it only for the sake of arguing. It doesnt benifit or hurt you, so instead of stepping aside and letting those that truly have a stake work it out, you would rather stand in the way just for the sake of standing in the way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: Re: re: Re: re: Are you sure?
It won't benefit anyone, in any way, except the registrars. This is a money grab, nothing more, nothing less. The scam is being disguised as yet another "for the children" play because there exist a sufficient number of people gullible enough to believe it. The registrars pushing this, I assure you, would just as happily peddle porn to your kids all day long if they could profit from it and escape the consequences.
(Oh, and by the way, just to cite one example out of tens of thousands: the "conepuppy" porn spammers have at least 11,599 domains as of this morning. Do you really think they're going to shift them all to .xxx? Do you really think they're going to pony up $68,594 in registrar fees (at $6 each, your number) for the privilege? And thats before we even get to the costs of setting up DNS, web servers, mail servers, changing a kazillion URLs, getting a kazillion URLs changed on other sites, getting search engine listings updated,etc. The registrar bill, large as it, pales in comparison to the aggregate costs of making such a change -- I figure a couple million, easy, and that's probably a severe UNDERestimate. There is absolutely no way they'd eat these costs: why should they? Yet we are somehow supposed to believe that porn site operators would magically agree to this move, would willingly pay it out of their own pockets? Not a chance in hell. And while IANAL, I can't see any legal basis for forcing them (in the US); and even if someone managed to come up with one, they could trivially avoid it by relocating outside the country.)
So I oppose it not just (a) because it will have absolutely no positive effects of any kind for anyone except the registrars but also because (b) it will have the severely negative effect of dumping large amounts of money into the coffers of registrars. Worse (c) success on this point will almost certainly encourage them to try the same scam again, likely using the pile of money they made from this one to promote it. And that's really bad news for the Internet.
This (.xxx) is an appallingly stupid idea which reduces to a single word: greed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: re: Re: re: Re: re: Are you sure?
Seriously, if you already have an IP address and content, you only need point your DNS to the IP and make sure that all your links now point to the .xxx instead of the .com(potentially with mod_rewrite) and maybe change some artwork. That takes all of 10 minutes, except maybe the artwork. I've done this so it's not as big an issue as you want everyone to think.
And yet once again... THEY ARE NOT PASSING A LAW FORCING PEOPLE TO USE THIS, THEY'RE CREATING A TLD. Get it straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worm Holes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy ass idea
Look, if your 13 year old is willing to go through the trouble of stealing your credit card and guessing the password for your content filter for hours on end just to see a pair of tits, then either show him yours or just admit it: your kid's got talent. Yeah, it may be talent as a thief, cheat, and hacker, but the sad truth is that the best money is made by people with skills in exactly those areas, both legal and illegal. Do you think Donald Trump is worth what he is because he always gives the person on the other side a good deal? Perhaps you'd like to see the over $25 million that the guy who wrote the LoveBug virus has made to date? Seriously, stop punishing him. Reward him for his intelligence and intellect because frankly he has much better odds at making something of himself that way than he does of becoming an NFL quarterback and therefore odds are those are the only tits he'll see for some years to come.
And besides that, who are you kidding? It's not like anyone ever died masturbating (ok, maybe, but not before they turned 21 and were no longer a kid anyway.) You allow your 10 year old son to go deer hunting with you and when he puts a bullet through the brain of a furry woodland creature you commend him and say nice shot. Hell, you probably bought him a 4 inch pocket knife capable of sticking all the way through his heart even before that. But a pair of tits is dangerous? Are you kidding me?!?! The only person you're protecting is yourself, from the reality that your kid might be more privileged than you were when you were his age. That's right, because the best toy you ever had to play with was a set of Lincoln logs, you expect him to get down on his knees and beg you for a set of LEGOs that probably cost the modern equivalent of one fiftieth of those logs. That's right. You spend $20 on supper, which even at minimum wage you earn in just 3 hours, but if he wants a $10 set of LEGOs or even a $20 game he had better find a way to get a tax deduction for it or else it ain't happening. Some great parent you are. I know it'll probably get my otherwise thoughtful and meaningful post deleted, but I must say this to you, Mr. Perfect Dad and Ms. Perfect Mom: Go fuck yourself. The problem here isn't that you need congress to pass a law and religate all porn to a .xxx domain. The problem is that you actually think some hooters are going to take your hunting rifle toting, Marlboro smoking, Budweiser drinking kid and turn him into an adult over night. Yeah, your kid needs protecting, but not from porn. He needs protecting from you, and though social services should be able to do just fine, we may have to get congress involved at some point.
Of course, you could just go buy him an issue of playboy when he turns 12 and nip this problem in the butt before it becomes one, but that's your call. I say let him hack his way to it and work for it. I did and now I make $80,000 a year managing a small ISP. But for the sake of God & Country, two things that aren't supposed to be connected, don't let him see porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worm Holes
You are absolutly correct that there will always be ways around it and monitoring your kids is the only real way to keep adult contact from them.
For "some other guy"... google doesnt block and the filter is easy to turn off. An inocent search can bring back some interesting results.
example, searching for your friends online is a common search. Try moderate search... image search.... search for any girls first name.... filter off you get all sorts of adult pics, moderate it trims it down but still some adult pics.... safe search it trims down more but certain names will still return adult sites.
Blocking the xxx sites wont block google from returning the results, but it will block the pics from returning. But as Matthew stated there is always a way around it, but as a parent I hope they dont figure out the way around until after I teach them the birds and the bees... and since I watch what they do on the internet they dont usualy run into them, but what about when they are at school? or go to the library?... I cant be by thier side 24x7 no matter how much I try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Middle ground
No law would need to be created either. ICANN can set whatever policies they want (if they are prepared to deal with the backlash for a stupid policy).
Why not let ICANN force this on sites?
You can also remove the financial benefit for registrars. Make it so that you have to have a .COM/.NET/.etc.... then you can submit to ICANN for the .xxx domain (first come, first serve... to avoid people complaining about 'I own domain.com and he owns domain.net.. who gets the xxx?').
Then you require that the only thing a .COM(et al) can do is send a redirect to the corresponding .XXX domain.
Then, things can be blocked easily. It would also allow sites that have NSFW content to pull those images or articles from the .xxx instead. Again, blockable.
Finally, ICANN will have to enforce this. Debate it out, define 'indecency' for this purpose and stick to it. 3 offenses (whether reported or bot found) and your domain (.com/.net/.xxx/.etc) is suspended and locked for 1 year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Middle ground
I think goverment makes too many regulations as it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Middle ground
Because ICANN shouldn't be enforcing morality. Why should ICANN be responsible for categorizing what is and what is not adult material?
Not to mention that they aren't prepared to deal with the repercussions. I imagine there would be fairly vocal worldwide condemnation of the move, as well as numerous lawsuits.
Debate it out, define 'indecency' for this purpose and stick to it.
That process should only take the rest of human existence to iron out. Setting a worldwide (or even an American) standard for indecency is entirely out of the realm of possibility.
What you are suggesting is hardly a middle ground. It's a proposal to dictate terms to web sites that contain adult material, and dumping the responsibility on ICANN's doorstep. How this constitutes a "middle ground" is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Middle ground
First, ICANN has not shown the ability or desire to shut down sites that are doing far worse things that peddling porn. There's is absolutely no reason to believe that they would act on this, nor is there any reason to believe that they'd want to, nor is there any money to support staff to take such action, nor is there is any reason to expect they'd prevail in court -- which is where this would likely end up.
Second, defining "indecency" globally is impossible.
Third, attempting to take away domains from current holders would provoke a firestorm of litigation whose most likely result would be the dismemberment of ICANN.
Fourth, there is no motivation of any kind for any site to go along with this. No economic motivation, no legal motivation, no functional motivation, nothing.
Fifth, none of this stops anyone from selling, buying, renting, repurposing or otherwise modifying a domain. So what is today harmless-fun-for-kids.com could tomorrow hold X-rated content.
And that's just the beginning. You're bumping into things that are wired deeply into the Internet's core design here, as well as economic and legal realities that have emerged around it. Unless you're prepared to build another Internet, this is going nowhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorry for shouting, but it is really silly to debate pros& cons. why? again, because it WONT WORK not because i want your sticky little child to see a boobie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHY won't it work?!?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hahahahahah
thats funny. let me know when you're done building agreement across the internets
hahahah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Re: re: Re: re: Re: re: Are you sure?
I get your point. You dont think the registrars should make more money. I get it. Down with planetdomain, down with GoDaddy... Down with AIT-Domains, you money mongers you.
You stated conepuppy has 11,599 domains. Wow they really must be hurting for money, I would hate to even suggest that they might want to re-register those names which they have to do yearly with a xxx at the end... They pay $68,594 a year (your number), so it would be soooo hard for them to create new ones in an xxx domain, or to re-register those as they expire. I would hate to think that they may make thier sites easier to find... I would hate to think that they could name thier page what ever they want without the risk of a lowly normal sight getting in thier way. They would really hate that. I am sure of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: Re: re: Re: re: Re: re: Are you sure?
And I don't have a problem with registrars making more money. I have a serious problem with registrars making more money from a scam. (And I'm appalled that anyone would actually support this obvious nonsense.)
And no, it wouldn't be hard for conepuppy to drop $68,594 on new domains, but as I carefully pointed out, that's a drop in the bucket compared to the TOTAL cost of such a shift. And there's no way they'll pay for that. Neither will bluegravity (17,083). Or any of the others. They have no reason to.
Since you can neither convince them to move (on economic grounds) nor force them to move (on legal grounds), exactly why would it make sense to give them a place to move to? And to pretend that they'd actually do it?
...unless...you're a registrar and you know that maintaining this pretense will put money in your pocket.
The economic and legal realities in play here mean that porn site operators have no motivation to give up their .com (or .net or .org or .info or whatever) domains. And unless someone is prepared to advance a legal theory that can be used to compel them to give them up -- oh, and that theory needs to work in every country where they might operate -- then suggesting that this will actually happen is ludicrous.
And even if things got that far -- which I guarantee you they won't because no such legal theory exists -- then what about enforcement? Who's going to monitor a hundred million domains every day to make sure that example.com -- which is today filled with pictures of nice fluffy bunnies -- isn't tomorrow X-rated central? And as long as we're indulging in speculation about things that are obviously impossible: suppose you solve that problem: who's going to enforce it? Don't tell me "the registrars" because we have a mountain of evidence highlighting not only their incompetence, but their active support of abusers...so there's no reason to except this to be any different.
So let's review: this will work...even though it's in the strong economic disinterest of porn site operators, but they're going to spend millions on it anyway, or someone is going to unify all world governments to yield a common legal framework complete with legislative and executive branches, then somebody will solve the problem of monitoring a hundred million domains (and all the subdomains, too, which has serious implications for things like blogspot) and then they're going to solve the problem of taking action on what monitoring reveals, and oh, yeah, somebody is going to pay for all the resources needed to do all this, and and and...
...monkeys will fly out of my butt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Re: re: Re: re: Re: re: Re: re: Are you sure?
So, it is clear that you are hell bent on the idea that this is a scam by the registars that you will not even consider that there are a number of people that believe this would be a great idea.. Even if only 10000 porn sites proactively move to a .xxx because they get to choose what ever name they would like with no competition except with other porn sites, that would still be 10000 sites that I dont have to individualy block from my kids. That is 10000 sites that blocking sites dont need to monitor.
The only reason you can come up with not to support it is that the registars make money, and in turn that money will go to the blocking companies and search engines to look at ways of keeping the sites from getting to children. That money that we are saving the porn sites will be mine and other parents hours and hours of wasted time of configuring our systems to keep our kids from seeing everything under the sun shoved up unmentionalbe places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is there more than one Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with poster #10
I think this new system will help my kids tremendously. Just the other day, my son and I were looking for landscaping ideas, so we typed "bush" into Google. I was so shocked to see the tons of search results that talked about President Bush!
If these sites were on a TLD of ".politics" (which I could block), my son wouldn't be exposed to Republican websites. Please, we have to do something to save our kids from these kinds of search results!
Also, I'd be very happy if I could block the TLD ".shop" so my wife wouldn't spend so much of our money!
Because I know that every single vendor on the Internet will gladly and willingly switch from their .com domain to the new .shop domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why wont it work? others have provided many of the same reason as i would, rich hits a lot in #68, i wont repeat them over and over.
"Can you tell me how making it possible to block at least some porn sites with the .xxx TLD is NOT useful?" OK - so i agree that creating this domain will block SOME sites. Will that make any useful difference to you? i highly doubt it. You may block a very small number of sites that like this idea and set up camp at the new domain. However, with growing numbers of pron sites and many of them not really legitimate content sites (link farms and the like), I very much doubt that it would reduce the number of times that someone is accidentally exposed to pron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, but you can use proxy websites http://proxymonster.us to search xxx stuffs. it will only show you website which you want to explore and will not break your computer safety for your childrens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]