| 8:16 pm on Apr 17, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have yet to figure out why .xxx or something of the same sort hadn't been created a long time ago. Might open up a surprising number of legitimately usable .com domains, give how many adult sites there are.
| 9:50 pm on Apr 17, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Who the heck do these sentors think they are! They know nothing about the Internet when they purpose bills like that. People are not going to give up .COMs! Who would enforce this. It just doesn't make sence. Sure, go ahead and create a porn TLD. But don't try to move people from one TLD to another. This will never be passed! Good thing 98% of all bills in the senate die.
| 10:04 pm on Apr 17, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Who would enforce this.
*snort* Probably the same people who currently ensure that .org is only used by non-profit groups, and .net is only registered by organizations providing some kind of internet technical service?
| 11:20 pm on Apr 17, 2002 (gmt 0)|
What would be more practical is to approach it from the other direction. A .kid that would be available for kid oriented stuff only. It would be commercially popular as well as parentally pleasing .....with stiff penalties for violations. Just my observations....
| 11:26 pm on Apr 17, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>the same people who currently ensure that .org is only used by non-profit groups, and .net is only registered by organizations providing some kind of internet technical service?
People who live in the past? Those one-time rules no longer apply... it's not that some entity isn't enforcing them, it's that they're no longer policy.
Back in that day when you wanted a domain name, by the way, you had to explain on the application what business you were in, etc.
Anyway, how surprising that yet another US government official has forgotten that the Internet isn't a US property. But probably no one even at the Senator's office expects this to pass -- the bill, as the linked story relates, was announced with fanfare at a press conference attended by an actor, a tv producer, and a network vice president... a little exercise in publicity; a photo opportunity for the campaign literature. Whether the bill passes or is even feasible is less important than that a politician can be portrayed as "championing a cause."
| 11:30 pm on Apr 17, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Its not for adult specific (pr0n) sites, just anything that is not for children. like creating a rating system for the web.
the site you are viewing is rated .pg .r .xxx .pg13
so a .kid wouldnt work well nor would a .xxx its just anything not meant for children
|brotherhood of LAN|
| 11:44 pm on Apr 17, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Anyway, how surprising that yet another US government official has forgotten that the Internet isn't a US property
Spot on. Any such legislation would put US companies at a competitive disadvantage, which is no doubt a negative thing for everyone in the short term
| 11:55 pm on Apr 17, 2002 (gmt 0)|
.kid is coming! However, the senate realized that it does not have jurisdiction over gTLDs. But instead the Senate did pass a .KID.US This will be for that purpose. So when .US goes live there will be a kid second level.
| 12:05 am on Apr 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
how surprising that yet another US government official has forgotten that the Internet isn't a US property
I think all govt's have been a bit guilty of this sort of attitude... Like France trying to tell Yahoo what it can and cannot allow on it's auction sites? Or Germany trying to tell Google what outdated links is must remove from it's index, and how quickly they must be removed?
| 12:30 am on Apr 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Actually the US does own the Internet. They created it after all. Internic is just a shell name for the US Department of Commerce. ICANN only rules because they have been allowed to by the US DOC. There is no constitutional separations like there is between church and state.
I would like to see ICANN get moved to be a UN organization. Countries should not be able to attack the Internet with there stupid laws only the world government should be able to impose laws on gTLDs.
| 12:42 am on Apr 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Interesting Lisa....I've missed that until now :)
It seems that when folks try to fix a problem, they attack it by exclusion. A more proactive approach is to develope an accomodating situation based on inclusion.
That was my particular point on using something at least like .kid so that included sites would be specifically monitored and allowed to participate based on meeting the established model from the get-go. I hear that is the approach for .aero which would be "aviation only" based.
It isn't practical to move backwards trying to clean up the mess already made, don't you think?
| 1:06 am on Apr 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Actually the US does own the Internet.
The groups who regulate domain names and whatnot may be US companies, but I think all the folks running major server farms outside US boundaries might take a wee bit of issue with purported US ownership of the entire network.
The internet as a whole has grown a bit beyond US "ownership" at this stage,
I'd say... no matter where ICANN, et. al. may be legally enthroned. I'd say the Internet is a strange beast existing in its own international limbo in most legal respects.
I would like to see ICANN get moved to be a UN organization.
Oh sure, and next you'll be saying there's no problem with those black helicopters that follow me everywhere too... and then comes the one world gov't, and... and.... and...
| 3:48 am on Apr 18, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The US Govnt created the servers, soon it became something that could be commercialized which is where we are @ today with companies like UUNet ;)
And I thought Gore created the Internet ;)
| 6:49 pm on Apr 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Take out the Root Servers and watch the Internet stop! Don't kid yourself, the US DOC is just like the US CIA. They both appoint proxy governments to rule. UUnet is nothing if their IP blocks get pulled ARIN/ICANN. The organization at the top is still the US government.
There is nothing wrong with a few black helicopters, So what if a few extra birds watching me get groceries. ;)