Thursday, May 11, 2006

ICANN rejects .xxx

Apparently, ICANN has rejected calls for a new top level domain, .xxx. The argument, it seems, goes along the lines of recognising = condoning = encouraging, which frankly I cannot see.

How hard would it be to create a .xxx domain, legislate so that all porn sites must be within .xxx and allow ISP account holders a tick box option to block all .xxx sites?

That seems very, very sensible to me. I can't imagine that porn operators will be encouraged to open a new porn site just because they can call it sex.xxx rather than sex.com.

Or am I missing something?

2 Comments:

Blogger pornstudent said...

A law requiring porn sites to use xxx domain would be unconstitutional. Since the porn sites weren't about to vacate their domains, the xxx domain couldn't have been used to filter porn.

There would have been a rush to buy and use xxx domains. Sex.com was sold in January for about $12 million. Sex.xxx would have been worth having.

It would have been a headache for many companies with a web presence. Would Disney need to buy disney.xxx to keep pornographers from using it? Would they want to buy it?

The xxx domain would have been used to market porn. Would yourhighschool.xxx attract teenagers looking for study partners? Or yourbaptistchurch.xxx be used to help local Christian sex addicts?

Most parents don't bother with filters. Maybe they think filtering porn would be legitimizing it. It's hard for me to take them seriously.

6:19 am  
Blogger Not my real name said...

All good points! Just curious, how is, say, zoning the internet and saying that only travel sites can use .travel, or only businesses can use .biz, or porn sites .xxx unconstitutional? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just not familiar with the argument. You probably can't take people's domain rights away, but you can ban the service etc they are providing, can you not? This would make the domain name worthless.

I guess companies like Disney would just have to trust that people are not so stupid as to think that whatever is on disney.xxx is associated with the company. I know this isn't the most desirable solution to this problem.

Schools likewise, and churches. I can see a problem with, for example, making .xxx blocking a default setting by ISPs, which if you wanted to access you would need to unlock.

But wow, are there issues there!

Thanks for the new comment!

5:28 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home