MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
greg at xwb.com
Fri May 12 15:49:31 UTC 2006
Aside from all of the technical aspects that would make having a .xxx tld
difficult at best,
you have to take into account the moral aspects. If all of the "adult"
sites were to switch to the .xxx format,
it would make it extremely easy (as if it isn't right now) for minors to
locate and access websites that they shouldn't
be allowed to view. Instead of having to google for "porn", all they'd have
to do is type: favoritepornhere.xxx and
shabaaam! there they go. Just my 2 cents.
greg at xwb.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <brunner at nic-naa.net>
To: <nanog at nanog.org>
Cc: "william(at)elan.net" <william at elan.net>; <brunner at nic-naa.net>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
> earlier i wrote:
>> the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort.
>> the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial, as the cctlds cover that,
>> and the authority, nominally, is a 501(c)(3) in marina del rey, and,
>> purely contractual, as is the registry restricted to cooperative entities
>> and the registry restricted to aviation entities.
> this drew a response from martin hannigan:
> : Negative. 92% of the root is under US jurisdiction with most ccTLD's
> : riding on that infrastructure. I'm in the process of analyzing that
> : now. I'll let you know what the number comes out to, but I bet it's
> : close.
> having been a party to the drafting of the icann new gtld contracts, an
> interested party in the case of the neu* .biz contract, and an invited,
> if ad hoc, expert in the case of the aero/coop/museum contracts, mostly
> at louis touton's initiative, i'm of the (ianal) opinion that other than
> the easily answered california incorporated 501(c)(3) jurisdictional
> question implicit in the contracts between icann and the new gtld
> that no jurisdictional restrictions were specified in the ngtld contracts.
> some actual lawyer may comment on the distinction between statutory
> authority over the conduct of parties to a private contract, and the
> civil law jurisdiction the parties agree to to resolve contractual
> there are parties that hold a territorial jurisdiction trumps all point
> of view. the us doc placed territorial jurisdiction (physical location)
> requirements in the .us rfp, which i also wrote the winning response to,
> so all .us nameservers are within the continental united states.
> personally i view this requirement as brain-dead.
> similarly, icann last summer adopted a contested redelegation process
> for cctlds which values territorial jurisdiction claims.
> personally i view this process change as brain-dead.
> obviously, milage varries.
> now the issue of controlling authority has come up previously, and the
> claim that there is only one jurisdiction, the us, has also been made
> see the w3c's p3p standard, and the data collection (aka "privacy) policy
> regimes we (i'm wearing that co-author hat now) provided mechanism for.
> again, ymmv.
More information about the NANOG