A vote was scheduled Friday as weeklong meetings conclude. The board's 15-voting members could approve it, reject it outright or reject it but leave room for a revised proposal to return. That last option, however, would contradict ICANN's desire to close the current round of domain name proposals, started in 2004.The board could also defer a decision for more discussion. That, too, is not likely given that ICANN already has rejected similar proposals twice since 2000 and has discussed the latest version during three teleconference meetings this year.
"They have made it very clear that the board will make a decision," said Paul Levins, ICANN's vice president for corporate affairs. "It's pretty clear that they want to make a decision."
Less spam
People who dont like porn can avoide it better.
that should have been already decided.
yeah right.
create the tlds:
.com.x-x-x
.net.x-x-x
.---.x-x-x
ie: create a sub-tld (how do you call that?) for all country-codes that allready exist.
Then each organisation managing a tld may decide that x-x-x-related content may not be operated anymore on their main domain. In return for the `lost domain`, they can give all current owners of such a domainname the x-x-x-version.
example:
pron-boss Joe owns JoesPalace.com and has x-x-x-related content on it.
.com decides x-x-x-related content may no longer be placed on .com-sites. And gives pron-boss Joe the domain JoesPalace.com.x-x-x and he may continue his business there.
edit: seems that I need to use some -'s in the tld.
[edited by: DoppyNL at 8:52 am (utc) on Mar. 30, 2007]
[theregister.co.uk...]
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 2:14 pm (utc) on Mar. 30, 2007]
[edit reason] added link [/edit]
"We are extremely disappointed by the boards action today," said Stuart Lawley, ICM's president and chief executive.
[news.yahoo.com...]
A referendum of sorts.
1. It was recently revealed that porn related e-mail spam now accounts for less than 4% of all e-mail spam. It was also suggested that there are other reason for why people who are getting a higher percentage than that are getting it. For instanceyou are frequenting porn sites and providing your e-mail address on every porn site requesting it, then that it likely the cause.
2. In the wake of a possible approval of a new .xx tld(which thankfully didn't happen) two piece of legislation have already been introduced by US Congressional Reps. that would require any website showing adult content related material (pictures or even text) to only be allowed to do so under a .xx tld. Existing websites that display adult related materials (pictures or text) would be required to move their websites to the .xx tld.
Basically, this is a direct attack on the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. If you can't see how wrong and how bad it would be for you to lose that right which you receive under the United States Constitution, I can't explain it to you.
3. An approval would have provided an easy means for allowing filtering of adult related content. However it would have also set a dangerous precedant as well. For instance in the future we could have seen that each religion had it's own tld and then goverments could mandate or filter which religous tlds were able to be viewed and which were not. Thus a specific country might say that isp's must block access to all sites that have a jewish religous message or a baptist message.
Some people still want to think that the internet should be made to be a kid friendly zone. However the internet is a representation of the world. It is not some new age babysitter for parents who want to escape the responsibilities of raising their children.
[edited by: Ledfish at 1:33 pm (utc) on Mar. 30, 2007]
However the internet is a representation of the world.
And in the world, there are laws about where strip clubs can be built and where p0rn can be shown.
It is not an abuse of the first amendment right. They are not saying you can't show it, just that some people would like to have it corralled into one area. If you don't think that happens in the real world, then explain what happened on Times Square in NY.
I actually think an .x x x ltd would be helpful to the porn industry as it would make finding their sites all that much easier. People who are activly searching for p0rn wouldn't have to hunt and peck for their desired niches. Better search engines could be built to find the types of p0rn people might want to find. I think it would help the industry more than hurt it.
On the flip side, it would make it all the easier for kids to get to. Even the most niave kid in the world could figure out how to get to a p0rn site if there was a special ltd for it.
I don't think that a special ltd will make the internet any more safe for the kiddies.
I guess it's all power, money, and influence and not common sense.
And in the world, there are laws about where strip clubs can be built and where p0rn can be shown.It is not an abuse of the first amendment right. They are not saying you can't show it, just that some people would like to have it corralled into one area. If you don't think that happens in the real world, then explain what happened on Times Square in NY.
However in the real world, there are laws about were commercial business can be versus residential and manufacturering and even churches.
Why would you only require that porn be required to be on it's own tld. Shouldn't then by that logic commerce all be required to be strictly on .biz or religion to all be on it's on specific tld or even politics to be on it own tld. Why would you only mandate what tld porn can be on?
As for an abuse of first amendment rights. How hard do you think it would be to block a specific tld from either an ISP standpoint or even on a browser level. Maybe then the next version of Firefox might have a software block built into it that prevents viewing of anything with a triple x tld. Certain states could require that ISP's block certain tlds. Once that happens and sets precedent, you could have a significant attack and abuse on first amendment rights. The simple reality is that part of protecting your first amendment rights is not giving people the tools so that they can abuse them in the first place.
Maybe then the next version of Firefox might have a software block built into it that prevents viewing of anything with a triple x tld.
Any ISP or browser that did that as a default or mandetory aspect would be giving itself the kiss of death. I have no fears of that ever happening. As already mentioned by someone else, p0rn is the whole reason the internet got on this far this fast.
It would make it easier to patrol my kids at home, but then again, they have friends and I can't control what they see on their friend's computer.
I am willing to bet that churches would like to have their own tld. It would be no different than goverment agencies getting a .gov or schools getting a .edu.
But even beyond that, laws... Pshaw. Just take a look at the homepage today to see how effective laws are at regulating anything on the internet. A country could pass a law saying tehy had to be only on a x x x domain, but who is going to patrol it? I mean they are doing such a <sarcastic>fantastic</sarcastic> job patroling for kiddie p0rn and that is already illegal. What happens when there are millions of sites suddenly to patrol?
US courts are in place to protect first amendment rights. Heck, they just shot down the internet p0rn law that was passed years ago and has been in teh courts since then. You think that after doing that the courts would let a blanket block of a tld go through?
It would be just as easy for a state to block all sites that contain a certain word, but you don't see that happening, do you?
Hospitals have a tld.
Govenment has a tld.
Schools have a tld.
Airlines have their tld.
Networks have it
Business had it
Countries have it
Organizations have it
Why can't the poor sex operators get one too?
shame of board members!
there are Gov there are Mil there are Edu etc.. but why not #*$!?!
looks fishy, some organization should really invistagte those board members..
Another large part of the community thinks that if we approve dot #*$!, all that material that we said will magically move into dot #*$!, and, therefore, children will be protected, because it will be easy to filter.Also that, in my opinion, is not going to happen.
Since the new TLD wouldn't have solved anyone's problem, it was rejected. Sure would be nice if it really worked, though.
A kid-safe TLD might work better technically, by presenting barriers to entry that .com and the rest don't have, if only the world could agree on what "kid-safe" is.
Since the new TLD wouldn't have solved anyone's problem,
It would have solved a problem for people looking for p0rn.
I like the idea of a kid friendly one though. .kid
I am happy with them rejecting it. Don't we have enough censorship with everything these days!
If you are going to constantly "protect kids" and box them in some sheltered world then don't let them play violent video games, don't let them watch TV, and don't let them socialize with other kids lol.
what amendment?
Think global please
This all seems like a lot of agonising over a problem that doesn't exist. Porn operators (unlike a stack of SEOs, MFAs, and phishing sites) mostly don't operate by stealth. You can see them a mile away, in keywords in the domains themselves, in page titles, metatags, etc...
they're not hiding. They're announcing themselves, and flagging which domains are porn. That's because porn is popular, so they've made it easy to find.
The flip side is, it's easy to filter. The search engines do an excellent job of this. There are also companies that specialise in blocking porn for those that want it blocked or firewalled.
So my question is: what problem would be solved by a .x x x domain?
I mean real problem, as opposed to hypothetical problem.
some people would like to have it corralled into one area
[edited by: callivert at 10:34 pm (utc) on Mar. 30, 2007]
If you are going to constantly "protect kids" and box them in some sheltered world then don't let them play violent video games, don't let them watch TV, and don't let them socialize with other kids lol.
It is clear in their bylaws that it not the role of ICANN to be involved in content.
STEVE GOLDSTEIN
"my decision turned on one point and one point only, and that was the last point in our board's resolution, the proposed resolution, that under the revised agreement, there can be credible scenarios that lead to circumstances in which we -- ICANN -- would be forced to assume ongoing management and oversight role regarding the content, and that is inconsistent with ICANN's technical mandate.
I believe that we have to guard very carefully against ICANN ever becoming a regulator in that sense, and it's for that reason, and that reason alone, that I would cast my vote against the proposed agreement. Thank you."
inconsistent with ICANN's technical mandate
No one is expecting the ICANN to become a moral authority, they are technical facilitators, and each society or group are free to decide their own moral standards and laws.
They can "facilitate" that adult tld and make it optional for adult content, then both ends of the spectrum would be served.
No one is forcing .com .net or .org on anyone, why should the adult tld be any different?
[edited by: Hobbs at 9:13 am (utc) on Mar. 31, 2007]
