MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain

william(at) william at
Thu May 11 18:53:03 UTC 2006

On Thu, 11 May 2006 Valdis.Kletnieks at wrote:

> On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:40:22 EDT, Alain Hebert said:
>>     If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere
>> else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there.
> The problem is that it's a TLD, not  What standard of "porn"
> do you intend to enforce?  Remember there's places that have Internet
> where females are still supposed to keep their faces covered in public.
> Besides which, "if we can corral them in it" looks like a very implausible
> concept.
> RFC3675.

Absolutly. I don't see how existing sites are ever going to accept
having to move to address in particular domain (and pay 100x extra for
it) or that there is any good way to force such rules across entire globe. 
That .xxx always seemed to me to be heavily ICANN-politics motivated
with benefits primarily to those running new registry. Good that they 
finally come around to kill this thing. Although the bad thing is that 
some will make a case that it happened because USG told them to do so
and as such push to replace ICANN with something that answers to ITU. 
Anyway, this is getting way OT for this list...

William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at

More information about the NANOG mailing list