ICANN Meeting Passes on .com, .xxx decisions 110
Rob writes "As the Internet Corp for Assigned Names and Numbers wound up its annual meeting in
Vancouver yesterday it was inactions that were still causing all the controversy. Major
decisions on the .com and .xxx domains had been postponed until next year, as the domain
name management body seeks to balance the interests of governments
and commercial domain name organizations."
Why .xxx won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, if you were hoping for a burgeoning directory of naughty stuff, then yes, you're boned
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:4, Insightful)
The big problem would be that only an idiot would put their porn site on
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1)
would adult sites object to self-monitoring? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a benefit to self-description, as long as the registering body isn't forced by that business's government to label certain things as porn. It has to be voluntary.
Ok, I see how edge-cases might raise questions, but why not just open the TLD and see what happens?
Judging from the time for the approval process, you would think they were trying to solve Fermat's Last Theorem. Hey, guys, it's fricking three letters. What's the holdup?
Robert nagle
Re:would adult sites object to self-monitoring? (Score:1)
. .
It has to be voluntary.
My personal hope is that the pornography sites will voluntarily register at .xxx domains, and voluntarily remove themselves from .com domains. It would make it much easier for me to filter out the porn.
The fact that I get a lot of spam concerning porn, however, tells me that they (whoever "they" is... certainly not all porn sites, but some of them, for sure) don't really care that much
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1)
We want to stop minors (by age or mental state) seeing Sex/porn (what's the difference?) sites.
We want to allow Adults to access legal sex sites to interact with others who are Adults.
Simple, allow the XXX dom and make it only accessable by adults using CC cards and the like.
Where is the problem? unless the controllers (?) believe that really there are no 'legal sex' sites,
but now that's a different ball game.
Over here in Europe we have a different take on what is exceptable to view and this helps crea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:2)
Actually, this sounds pretty straightforward. Except for the part where they deluge the domain with so many restrictions that pr0n becomes effectively illegal.
"And we shall have peace..."
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1, Interesting)
Good thing you don't have a clue what you're talking about [ietf.org].
please mod up parent (Score:2)
The above link is great. I'll link there again.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt [ietf.org]
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1)
And they never will.
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:2)
1 - Well, create the .xxx domain and people will search for porn there.
2 - Make people search for porn at the xxx TLD, and almost all sites will be there.
It will not block all sites, but I can't really understand why you people keep saying that it is useless. If everything else fails, it will make it easier to find porn.
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:2)
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:2, Insightful)
I worry more about say a breast cancer site that has information of self examination or birth control sites. You even have to wonder about sites like Slashdo
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1)
And I just wish we didn't have so many young children posting on here. Except for the funny ones. They make me laugh. Ho ho.
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many commercial filters that can filter out offending sites by keyword blocking. The things you object to on Slashdot could probably be blocked, if you truly don't want to read them. The downside is that you would probably wind up being mostly unable to read Slashdot if you applied such a filter.
Alternatively, you could write (or hire someone to write) a plugin for your brow
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1)
My definition of filthy is simple profanity without reason and the different flavors of hate speech. Frankly I wish the technical side would stay technical.
Hey it could be an option. I doubt that any filtering software on earth could b
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a straightforward definition (despite its brevity). Define "profanity." Define "reason." Define "hate speech." Define "anti-Semitic." Define "racist."
I am sure that you have clear conceptions of each of these (and your conceptions of them might not be all that different from mine), but I guarantee you that your definitions of each will var
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:2)
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1)
This month is National Smurf Cancer Month! Every woman should carefully check her Smurfs at least once a month for unusual lumps or bumps
John 12:14 And Jesus saw a young Smurf and took his seat on it;
When the Smurf crows
Vice President Smurf Cheney emerged from an undisclosed location today for a brief press conference...
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1, Insightful)
Then lock them in the basement. It's difficult as a parent to watch your children exposed to things like profa
This ain't rocket science (Score:2)
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1)
How about this: Be a parent.
A filter is a good feature, but even those are imperfect.
If you're so concerned that your child might see something, then take the TV or computer out of your home and out of your life. Don't try to mandate what others have access to.
IMO it's "lowest common denominator" thinking - in that we all have to suffer the homogization
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:2)
You comment is interesting. So the Internet shouldn't be for kids? Children shouldn't be allowed on it because it is meant for adults???
I am an adult and I don't like a lot of what I read on Slashdot. I really don't mind the different views but the vocabulary is down right sixth grade. You say be a parent but I have seen full blown porn
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1)
By the way, I don't get any porn in my email. I don't publish my email address in plain text, and I don't write emails to people I don't know.
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:2)
I have an email address that I have had since oh.. 93 when it was safe to use Usenet.
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1)
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:2)
But that content is "filtered" by the librarian. At least it is at my library. The problem again is that can get abused. In my Jr. High School Brave New World and 1984 where restricted. I have NO idea why since Brave New World if anything was anti drug and anti casual sex.
Like I said, I would love a good way to filter the crap that can't be abused I just haven't figured one out yet.
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1)
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1)
I think it's oversimplifying the point was I trying to make to infer that I want the Internet to be an Adults only resource.
As far as the vocabulary of some
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1)
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:2)
Emminent Domains explains the Fifth Amendment's "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" clause. Note there's especially no allowance there to take private property for other private use.
But, hey. This is the era of black hole federalism. I forgot it's already been ruled legal by the Supreme Court!
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:2)
1. That a domain name is property.
2. That even if it is property, "taking it away" and then giving you a
3. That ICANN taking your domain name is a government act. I think an argument could be made that it is not, and therefore the eminent domain (NOTE THAT IIT IS NOT PLURAL) wouldn't even apply. Of course, if you assume that its property, this could then be a violation of other
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:2)
2) Can easily be shown to be true by showing the correlation in prices between what
3) Dang, I hate when I confuse government and private enterprise. Still, I imagine they have a clause that "any violation of ICANN rules is grounds for relinquishing of domain", and everyone's got to be
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:2)
Of course it will work! (Score:2)
You think the idea is to move porn from the rest of the TLDs onto
You think .xxx is going to be your garden-variety $4.95/12Mo .com price? Nooo... it'll be a premium TLD, you'll pay top dollar for it, and renewals will be for 6 or 12 months only (because porn sites go up and down faster than a bride's nightie).
Why .xxx won't work (Score:2)
You appear mistaken in at several items.
First, it would be technically trivial (although pricey) for sites with .com hosted porn to convert the entire content to a kid-safe "I agree/I disagree" page, with "I agree" pointing to the .XXX site. The current porn sites don't need to give up the
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:2)
Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:1)
Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:5, Insightful)
For governments and regulatory bodies to try to assess interests for the masses, failure will always be the end result. We have the free market where the billions of consumers make decisions every second and the market continuously changes in response to the demand by consumers and the supply of a given service or product. On the other hand we have regulatory bodies and governments that change over years or even decades in order to satisfy 51% of the voting block.
Domain name extensions don't make sense anymore -- as we continue to add more, the value of the old extensions diminishes (except, maybe,
Re:Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:2, Funny)
That's exactly what the ICANN board members are thinking. "Why should anyone else have a say when I want to do it this way!"
Re:Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:1)
Re:Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the market is not your girlfriend.
Because the market is not Santa Claus.
Because the market is not a creative entity.
Because the market is dumb as shit, and easily influenced.
Because the market is not a panacea for every societial ill.
(except for extreme forms of free-market-fetishism, in which social ills are wished away)
Why not just open the floodgates ... (Score:1)
Re:Why not just open the floodgates ... (Score:2)
Learn it, love it, live it.
The cornerstone of our country (supposedly)
Re:Why not just open the floodgates ... (Score:1)
If you did it, you are guilty whether or not anyone else knows about it.
As a side note: It is not in the constitution.
Re:Why not just open the floodgates ... (Score:2)
Though yeah, you're right. The "presumed" bit is somewhat essential to the maxim.
Re:Why not just open the floodgates ... (Score:1)
Re:Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:2)
It's a foregone conclusion to governments (even so-called capitalist ones) that the free market, without regulation, does not always result in the best solutio
Re:Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:2)
Which market requires force and coercion most, in your opinion?
I'd hate to have to pay for 10x the number of registrations, just to preserve the integrity of my company's business name online.
So you believe you have the right to monopoly over the use of non-unique words presented in a certain combin
Re:Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:2)
That's a loaded question. Regulation is very important in many markets IMO... like with industries that pollute, for example. Or natural monopolies. Or any particular market where the people decide to assign the government the right to regulate (I think this is overstepped alot, BTW). I was responding to a generalization in the OP that shouldn't be taken as always accurate.
"So you believe you have the right to monopoly over the use of
Re:Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:1)
You bring up an interesting point, but it is one that is widely thought of as unacceptable in this case. ICANN would not exist if it had been deemed that the "free market" would come up with a suitable solution on its own. Domains cannot be influenced by the free market, as you would either have so many domains that you would have search google every time you wanted to find a website, or everyone would be so lazy that there would only be one. It is important that there are some rules determining what a doma
Re:Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:3, Informative)
ICANN also has the money to market themselves as necessary, whereas I don't have the money to market that they really aren't necessary. This is why I work slowly trying to convince individuals, who as a group are more powerful than the wealthiest advertiser. That is the free market at wo
Re:Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:1)
I just disagree with you. That's just the way it is. Yes, I guess some companies would want to work together, but in reality i think that all the small individuals/companies would be trying to give themselves their own unique extension, and we would end up with a world of confusing, disparate and maybe even offensive urls. When you talk about the free market solution, you have to remember that the Internet is a unique being, and that you don't need to be a business to take part in the melee. Yes, in the rea
Re:Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:2)
Which to me is BS because your birth rate is over 1.0 and has been from before the births of the so called Baby Boomers. This means that MORE people are paying into the fund. The U.K. continues to inflate the British Pound, causing non-stop devaluing of the cur
Re:Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:1)
I refuse to believe your tin-hat, bomb-shelter-in-the-back-garden approach to the government. Your U.S. government may behave in that way, but here in Britain we have laws and regulations to prevent the government behaving in the way that you describe. I am quite happy to work all my life and pay my taxes so that I and others less (and more) fortunate than myself can have free healthcare, a sizeable state pension, and a government that looks after me when my fortunes take a turn for the worse. Cos not every
Re:Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:2)
The two factors you list are not even close to being the only two things causing failure of pension systems worldwide. In fact, they are likely not even the top two factors. Also, devaluation of currency actually helps the solvency of a pension system. And, there is
Re:Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:2)
I disagree in the long term intent of devaluation. Look at it this way, if you're expecting to earn 60% of your income upon retirement 30 years from today, and the government devalues currency 100% in that time (the U.S. is devaluing almost 10% a year!), then prices will be double, so you're really earning is actually 30% of your current income.
Increased payout times (longer life expectancy)
Fluctuations in the size of the workin
Re:Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:2)
Well, duh
" believe a fund manager who follows the Austrian School of thought would be the best to make investment decisions"
A good stock fund manager takes this into account. However, a good fund would not be looking only at stocks.
"If
christmas present xxx (Score:2, Informative)
Time to do our own thing then (Score:4, Funny)
Criticism (Score:5, Funny)
Um... that makes sense, I guess. In other news, Slashdot is criticised for posting dupes as frequently as it is criticised for duplicating posts.
Re:Criticism (Score:1)
Re:Criticism (Score:2)
Is there a new date set for decisions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is there a new date set for decisions? (Score:2)
I'm not all that familiar with the workings of ICANN. The article doesn't say that this current "annual meeting" is the ONLY annual meeting. How many "annual meetings" does Apple have? Lots.
The real reason (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and since it's getting slow already, here's the article:
ICANN meeting passes on .com, .xxx decisions
5th December 2005
By Kevin Murphy in Vancouver
As the Internet Corp for Assigned Names and Numbers wound up its annual meeting in Vancouver yesterday it was inactions that were still causing all the controversy.
Major decisions on the .com and .xxx domains had been postponed until next year, as the domain name management body seeks to balance the interests of governments and commercial domain name organizations.
During a public forum on Saturday, domain registrars voiced concerns over the proposed settlement between ICANN and VeriSign Inc, which would give VeriSign a five-year extension to its .com registry contract and the ability to raise prices 7% a year.
And proponents of the .xxx domain said their proposals to launch a porn-only address has been turned into a political football by ICANN's governmental advisors, a charge not being strenuously denied by ICANN or governments.
"The very few governments that have written to ICANN, with the possible exception of the US, are not opposed to our proposal on substantive grounds," said Stuart Lawley, president of would-be .xxx operator ICM Registry Inc.
"The ICM application is being held hostage in a dispute between ICANN and the GAC," he added, referring to ICANN's Government Advisory Committee, which has members from dozens of international governments.
Lawley had arrived here working on the assumption that ICANN's board would approve .xxx on Sunday. However, it was pulled from the agenda at the eleventh hour after the GAC asked for more time to review the .xxx proposal.
"Some governments are concerned with the content of .xxx itself, then there are those concerned about process," GAC chair Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi, a senior Malaysian telecommunications regulator, said in an interview with ComputerWire.
Members of the GAC "are just trying to understand the processes ICANN took" he said. Some had assumed that because a proposal to offer .xxx from ICM was rejected in 2000, that it would also be thrown out this time, he said.
There's a bigger political picture too. Following the recent World Summit on the Information Society, a UN meeting on internet governance, governmental interest in the ICANN process has been reignited.
"In some respects, this discussion about .xxx is a proxy for the renewed attention governments are paying to ICANN," ICANN president Paul Twomey told us.
WSIS created a document called the Tunis Agenda, which promised to leave existing internet management bodies including ICANN essentially untouched, while also recognizing the roles government can play.
"It's not unimaginable that some governments went into this GAC meeting with their own interpretation of Tunis Agenda," Tarmizi said. "There were those who saw the Tunis Agenda being a statement of political will for change to take place, there were some who said it just reaffirmed what we had already being saying."
While Tarmizi would not be drawn on which governments are demanding the extra scrutiny of
Who cares (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess no one.
BTW, ICAAN seems too weak and not able to challenge Verisign or the US governement.
Hell yeah !!! (Score:2)
yes i know the quote is misrepresented, I just like the sound of it :P
Best Interests (Score:1)
.xxx and .kids (Score:3, Insightful)
You might as well have both TLDs and make it known "East is East & West is West".
Turn
As far as
.con (Score:4, Funny)
Re:.con (Score:1)
Re:.con The IETF "Evil Bit" and morality (Score:1)
In IPv6 there was to be an malicious content extensio
So, let's review... (Score:5, Informative)
No, wait, we don't want ICANN to be run -like- the United Nations. Okay.
So, ICANN has already passed decisions on the major resolutions of interest until next year, and instead is now the subject of political tugs of war, so much so that nothing is being accomplished except idle banter between politicians, committees and private industry.
I'd say that it's already being run like the UN! =)
Ever heard of ITU ? (Score:2)
Re:So, let's review... (Score:1)
i) Slashdot is made of different people
ii) Many of those people hold different opinions
Err, that's it.
Re:But Didnt Condi Say (Score:2)
Note that the "new intergove
Re:But Didnt Condi Say (Score:2, Insightful)
Can It, Tag It (Score:1)
As for the global domai
Re:Can It, Tag It (Score:1)
Consensus lacking (Score:2)
All the discussion of the .xxx domain and UN governance of the Internet domains is a smokescreen for the real issue at the heart of all this: lack of true global consensus. Look at any issue affecting the planet - the spread of AIDS, global warming, terrorism, etc. On no issue can the governments of the world come to any understanding of the urgency of the problems laid before them. If it is not the industrialized world blocking things as being "too expensive" or "bad for the global economy" it's the poorer
THE answer... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:THE answer... (Score:2)
.xxx already exists (Score:3, Informative)
The ICRA [icra.org] (formerly know as RSAC) defines a meta tag that allows a web site to indicate the level of violence, nudity, etc. that is on a page, or a site, or a directory of a site. It is easy, unbiased, and self-reporting. Internet Explorer [icra.org] supports it. I don't know if any other browsers do. All of the off-the-shelf parental control programs support it. But I don't see any sites adding these labels to their pages. Why not?
Maybe I should email the search engines and ask them to support it in their searches. Google already has a safety setting in the image search.
What? Inaction on the part of ICANN? (Score:1)
ICANN needs to go (Score:1)
.xxx already exists (Score:1)
ICANN dosn't have any rights to .xxx as it is already being served by the alt-root networks. Contrary to ICANN's propaganda, ICANN isn't the only Domain Name System serving the Internet community. The alt-roots not only resolve all the Legacy TLD's & ccTLD's (.com .org .net .edu .us .uk .zh etc..), but also all the alt-TLD's (.pub .oss .xxx .unix .biz etc...).
Untill ICANN aquires the Right's to .xxx from the lawful owners of it, they would be infringing on the owners rights.
That's why they are stall