Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet IT

ICANN Meeting Passes on .com, .xxx decisions 110

Posted by Hemos from the the-glaciers-in-town-moved-faster dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ICANN Meeting Passes on .com, .xxx decisions More

ICANN Meeting Passes on .com, .xxx decisions

Comments Filter:

  • Why .xxx won't work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @10:53AM (#14184724)
    If you're not going to mandate that adult content can only be hosted on .xxx, then it will be useless for the reasons the fundies want. You know, that bit about not being forced to give up property of your .com domain?

    On the other hand, if you were hoping for a burgeoning directory of naughty stuff, then yes, you're boned :(
    • And if it is forced, where does the line go? For example, if I have an automobile site that has some pictures of girls leanin on cars without bikinis, do I have to get .xxx domain or can I still use .com? What about wallpaper-pages that have nude pictures along other images? And so on..

      • Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @11:25AM (#14184965) Homepage
        And what happens to the many news + porno sites that nerds like to visit? Where do you draw the line? Fark has boobies links for example - but only a prude would call it a porn site. But there are numerous sites that slide down the line between Fark and straight out porn sites.

        The big problem would be that only an idiot would put their porn site on .XXX - because with that level of labelling, you'd risk more than just client side filtering (which only a foolish porno webmaster would complain about) but full-fledged back-end censorship - any one of the middling systems between your users and your site could be owned by "family oriented" bodies who might just drop all .XXX packets.
        • you could regulate it so only the really filthy shit has to move...nudity is okay, but if anyone starts having sex, over to .xxx. That way these sites can still exist and serve their function.

        • would adult sites object to self-monitoring? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by rjnagle ( 122374 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @11:54AM (#14185219) Homepage
          The assumption made here is that porn sites would object to being labeled "porn." I don't think that is the case. They would love a way to make it easy for content filters to block access for children. That makes their job easier, not harder.

          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

           
          • They would love a way to make it easy for content filters to block access for children.
            . . .
            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

        • OK
          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)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • 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.

      • and easier to block. All current porn sites (and there are a lot) should be grandfathered into the old domains, but NEW sites use XXX. if the market is unstable enough, it should force a natural transition over several years.

    • Re:Why .xxx won't work (Score:2, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      It isn't just the fundies that want to filter pron. Schools and even relatively liberal parents would like to be have an easy way to lock out porn. As someone pointed out what is porn. Someone asked if they had a car site that had pictures of nude women laying on cars would that be porn? Yea that would pretty much go right in to the adult category IMHO.
      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
      • "I wouldn't want a young child reading some of the posts on here."

        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)

        by Woldry ( 928749 )
        You don't have to change Slashdot to prevent yourself and your children from seeing the things you find "depressing".

        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
        • "If, however, you meant that you think you have the right to decide what my children should be allowed to read, that's a completely different matter. I will not help you find ways to do that, and I will oppose any effort to impose your standards of what qualifies as "filth". "
          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)

            by Woldry ( 928749 )
            My definition of filthy is simple profanity without reason and the different flavors of hate speech ... the anti-semitic and racist posts that I see

            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
            • "So you are saying that if my kid is under 14 years old, you would prevent him from reading them? That would be my decision as a parent to allow or forbid it. I don't recall surrendering my parental rights or responsibilities to anyone else. If you want to keep your own kids under 14 from reading them, fine and dandy. That's your right as a parent. (Mind you, I'll think you're silly, and naive, and doing your kids a disservice. But I will still support your right, because they're your kids.) Don't fancy, ho

        • a plugin for your browser that would find offensive words and, say, display them only in a white font, or insert the word "Smurf" every time an offensive word appears

          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...

      • Before I get the "free speech" rants shouldn't parents have the freedom to decide what their child can read? I wouldn't want a nine year old of mine reading Penthouse or propaganda from the KKK or Nazis. Frankly I wish that Slashdot would have a filth filter. I wouldn't want a young child reading some of the posts on here. The amount of profanity and hate speech I see is at times very depressing.

        Then lock them in the basement. It's difficult as a parent to watch your children exposed to things like profa

      • Ok, the .xxx domain system will not be perfect. HOWEVER the magazine, film, etc industries have managed to figure out what is porn and not porn. The same type of regulations should be applied.
      • It drives me crazy when people think or expect that it's okay to water down or criple anything that isn't meant for children "because a child might see it."

        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
        • Wow. People really don't read my posts. I said that the .xxx domain wouldn't work unless enforced but that I could see no real good way to enforce it that couldn't be abused.
          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
          • That's like saying the library isn't for kids cause there are some books there that are unsuitable. My local library has illustrated books about erotic photography, abortion and sex therapy. Those books are meant for adults, but the libary is meant for everyone. Can you see how that works?

            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.
            • "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."
              I have an email address that I have had since oh.. 93 when it was safe to use Usenet.
            • "My local library has illustrated books about erotic photography, abortion and sex therapy. Those books are meant for adults,"
              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.
          • Your post inspired mine, but everything I said in my post wasn't directed entirely at you and what you said. I can appreciate your point and why you're concerned about children, but I think that looking to content providers (or as some extremists suggest) to legislation to provide filtering isn't going to work and ends up causing more restrictive issues.

            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
    • I'm all about the mandate, makes sense as the whole original reason for using different .??? endings was to make things organized (org = orginazations, com=commercial, etc...) so .xxx=porn only makes sense. It doesn't seem like that hard of a decision either, heck it seems like if you just make it avaiable, the relevent sites will jump on it so they can be the first to be there. I figure it's good advertising, makes their content easier to block I suppose, but it also makes easier to find for those who are
      • That's the only question? What about your right to not have property taken away from you because of new laws.

        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!
        • You're also making a few simple and possibly incorrect assumptions:

          1. That a domain name is property.
          2. That even if it is property, "taking it away" and then giving you a .xxx domain in exchange for it would NOT be just compensation.
          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
          • 1) I tried many different paragraphs to try and refute your arguement that domains may not be property, but can't! It just is, dammit :)

            2) Can easily be shown to be true by showing the correlation in prices between what .coms are auctioned for versus what .infos or any of the newfangled sites sold for.

            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
            • 1) "It just is" isn't really an argument. To be fair, I haven't really looked to see if there's any basis for stating that domains are not property, I was merely stating the possibility. My basis is looking at U.S. grazing leases; I can't cite the exact statute off the top of my head (and I'm in the midst of finals, so I can't spend a great deal of time on it right now), but basically the law explicitly states that ranchers have no property right in the leased lands. I'm theorizing that there may be a si
    • You just misunderstand what its purpose is.

      You think the idea is to move porn from the rest of the TLDs onto .xxx. The real purpose is twofold:
      1. Make ICANN look good; like it's "thinking of the children".
      2. Make more money by selling more domains.

      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).

    • If you're not going to mandate that adult content can only be hosted on .xxx, then it will be useless for the reasons the fundies want. You know, that bit about not being forced to give up property of your .com domain?

      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

    • Err, the fundies don't want .xxx at all, because "it makes finding porn easier". It's conservatives that want to force all porn into .xxx for easier filtering. Originally [wired.com] .xxx was about something else (in addition to make lots of money of course ;-)

      A Florida company, ICM Registry, proposed .xxx as a mechanism for the $12 billion online porn industry to clean up its act. All sites using .xxx would be required to follow yet-to-be-written "best practices" guidelines, such as prohibitions against trickery t

    • Domains. I love the idea of divided domains, .EDU and .GOV are excellent examples of specialized domains that help browsers find relevant information with some assurance of not being led astray. What else would you add? Here are some idle thoughts.
      • .XXX for porn, or possibly just stuff that does not belong in the minds of minors.
      • .ALT for alternative interest/adult stuff that does not focus on porn, or completely free-range sites like the ALT newsgroups.
      • .KID for child-safe domains, Linking only t

  • Seeking to balance the interests of who? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Monday December 05, 2005 @10:53AM (#14184727) Homepage Journal
    The only interests that matter, IMO, are those of the individuals. There is no mass-interest-level that can be made into a number and protected by a law or a regulation. In fact, interests change constantly.

    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, .com). Why not just open the floodgates and let the market create what it needs? Why should anyone have a say in guiding those billions of buying decisions, other than the individual consumers making them?
    • Why should anyone have a say in guiding those billions of buying decisions

      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!"
    • Why not just open the floodgates and let the market create what it needs?

      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)
    • There is no diplomatic way to phrase this. .xxx tld isn't populated by corporate citizens such as FordMtrCo, Reliant, Sony, etc... There is historically dubious funding sources and structures behind the business we refer to as porn. In the post-modern era, post 9-11, the funding mechanisms for non-state sponsored actors in global politics is troublesome. There are infinite reasons to NOT "just open the floodgates" when you have no idea what it is that you are releasing. Someone should have a say in guid
    • "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."

      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
      • t's a foregone conclusion to governments (even so-called capitalist ones) that the free market, without regulation, does not always result in the best solution for everyone. I'd have to agree with them, but YMMV.

        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
        • "Which market requires force and coercion most, in your opinion?"

          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

    • 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

      • 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.

        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

        • 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

          • For your information, the pensions crisis in Britain is by far and away going to be caused (for it hasn't happened yet) by all the Baby Boomers retiring at once, and every single one of them living an average of 8-10 years longer than their parents.

            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

            • 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

        • "Actually, the pensions crises in every country comes from the fact that the currency they are based in is being debased, and that the companies that invested in the pensions are finding themselves uncompetitive because of those pensions."

          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
          • Also, devaluation of currency actually helps the solvency of a pension system.

            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
            • "then prices will be double, so you're really earning is actually 30% of your current income."

              Well, duh :). The reason this helps the solvency of a pension system is that it lowers the accrued liability of the org/gov that is paying the pension (assuming it's not indexed).

              " 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
  • I was expecting a christmas present from ICANN...

  • Time to do our own thing then (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05, 2005 @10:54AM (#14184741)
    I reckon it's time to start seeding our own DNS servers with the required domains then, seeing as ICANN can't manage it. And rename then to ICANT.

  • Criticism (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @10:57AM (#14184754)

    He went on to observe several times that ICANN is criticized for not moving quickly enough as frequently as it is criticized for moving too slowly.

    Um... that makes sense, I guess. In other news, Slashdot is criticised for posting dupes as frequently as it is criticised for duplicating posts.

  • Is there a new date set for decisions? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by httpamphibio.us ( 579491 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @10:57AM (#14184756)
    The article just says, "next year," and then calls the current meeting an "annual" meeting. Does that mean we're going to have to wait another year for any changes?

  • The real reason (Score:3, Informative)

    by andyring ( 100627 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @10:59AM (#14184765) Homepage
    I think the real reason they haven't made a decision yet is because this is what happens when you take a bunch of high-paid bureaucrats who answer to no one and let them have free reign of things. They don't make decisions! They're simply incapable of it. It's easier to defer a decision under the guise of some lame excuse for a long time, that way you can more easily justify your "job" and it makes it look like you're actually doing something. Mix it in with governments from around the world, and it's a picture-perfect recipe for nothing to happen.

    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)

    by trollable ( 928694 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @11:05AM (#14184803) Homepage
    of us?

    ...as the domain name management body seeks to balance the interests of governments and commercial domain name organizations."

    I guess no one.
    BTW, ICAAN seems too weak and not able to challenge Verisign or the US governement.
  • "Vote on xxx tomorrow," Mueller said. "Get a backbone. Show that you're independent"

    yes i know the quote is misrepresented, I just like the sound of it :P

  • While the interest may lie with individuals who are in it for money, or politicians who wan to "clean up" the itnernet, I feel better knowing that ICANN is taking care of more important business first.

  • .xxx and .kids (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 70Bang ( 805280 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @11:08AM (#14184838)


    You might as well have both TLDs and make it known "East is East & West is West".

    Turn .kids into a walled garden: *.kids can point to and only to *.kids.

    As far as .xxx goes, start peeling the spammers off of everyone's windshields. Instead of waiting for 50'000'000 pieces of evidence, cut them off at the knees a bit earlier. Why with .xxx? redirection. If you filter your email, it doesn't appear to come from someone you know, and it's got .xxx within the content, reroute it to the porcelain euphemism (just remember to flush twice & hard -- it's a long way to the kitchen).


  • .con (Score:4, Funny)

    by PhilHibbs ( 4537 ) <snarks@gmail.com> on Monday December 05, 2005 @11:10AM (#14184853) Journal
    All scammers, spammers, phishers, and other Internet fraud should be conducted through .con domains.
    • and still people would fall their tricks...
    • The IETF tried and failed to regulate morality like this in 2003. It was a brilliant but doomed plan. What makes you think ICANN can do better? There was a brilliant RFC [3514] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt [ietf.org] crafted to improve the efficiency and efficacy of network security screening / content filtering by requiring evildoers and ne'er do wells to mark a special IP security flag known as the 'evil bit' in packet headers containing malicious content.

      In IPv6 there was to be an malicious content extensio

  • So, let's review... (Score:5, Informative)

    by meisenst ( 104896 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @11:12AM (#14184873) Homepage
    We don't want ICANN to be run by the United Nations.

    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! =)
    • From what I see , ICANN is run *worst* than all of the technical UN institution. Sure the "political" side of the UN is poorly run, but that would be previsible from a meeting of people with all different (read opposite) agenda , and 6 of them can say at any time "shut the hell up we are right" (security concil, a real shame). But if you look at the technical institution they are pretty damn well run. ICANN in comparison is RIGHT at the political UN level. On the contrary to everybody here I would purport t
    • So, let's review.

      i) Slashdot is made of different people
      ii) Many of those people hold different opinions

      Err, that's it.
  • I too once thought an *enforced* .xxx domain was a good idea, just to allow those who wished it to easily block adult content. But now I've come to think that's too much of a hack. If the government wants to regulate it all they'd have to do is mandate offical META-TAGS to be used in pages. They could do a number of differnt content meta-tags realated to sex, language and violence. Browsers could then be configured to not display certain pages. That's a much better way to go about it.

    As for the global domai

  • 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)

    by bsdluvr ( 932942 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:34PM (#14186128) Homepage
    Let's pretend .org stands for .orgasm, and use that one instead.

  • .xxx already exists (Score:3, Informative)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @02:12PM (#14186475) Homepage
    There is already a standardized way to do this, but nobody is using it.

    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.
  • They should change their name to ICANT....
  • the domain name management body seeks to balance the interests of governments and commercial domain name organizations
    There lies the problem. ICANN should be focused on what's good for the internet as a whole, just because Jesusland (formely the U.S.) doesn't like pr0n shouldn't effect whether the .xxx tld is good for the internet.

  • 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

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close