bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
| Here is a thought
If porn sites were required to use the .xxx TLD and they were allowed to redirect their multiple .com addresses to a .xxx, wouldn't it be easier for people, businesses et al to block the .xxx TLD?
I know there are a lot of ways around it and who is considered porn and then there is the first amendment but they would be allowed their free speech, just regulated like they are now. Anyone required to have a 2257?? would be required to be on the .xxx TLD.
This should be an ICANN requirement.
--
Just my 2 cents...Flame Lightly... |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| I think a big part of the problem with an XXX domain is that porn laws vary from country to country (and even from locality to locality). Legal adult entertainment in one country might be totally illegal in another country. There's going to be no way that ICANN can very that every XXX domain-named website will be in compliance with local laws.
A more minor problem is that many non-adult entertainment oriented businesses are going to have to stake claims to XXX domains which are the same as their trademarks. You open up a whole new area of squatter/extortion problems with such domains.
A responsible parent can find any number of ways to ensure his/her child does not access inappropriate content online. Segregating legal porn sites is not something that ICANN, or any government at all, should be concerned with.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
MrBradTX
join:2001-05-23
Carrollton, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to bigjimc
said by bigjimc  :If porn sites were required to use the .xxx TLD and they were allowed to redirect their multiple .com addresses to a .xxx, wouldn't it be easier for people, businesses et al to block the .xxx TLD? Required by whom? Enforced by whom? Monitored by whom? There are hundreds of different countries, wtih differing attitudes about adult content. US laws don't apply in France or China or Tuvalu. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | reply to pnh102
Maybe you don't think there should be top level domains at all? Typing .com gets so redundant after a while... |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
| reply to MrBradTX
As I said. ICANN. Monitored by anyone who wishes to report a porn site not using .xxx
As far as the hundreds of different countries. Duh....ICANN is international. That's why I said ICANN not the US or EU or any one nation.
The cost of monitoring would be covered by fees collected for a .xxx TLD The Fee should be $35 per year per name (with $25 to ICANN). That would generate enough additional revenue to pay for monitoring. People would submit .com porn to ICANN's Porn Monitoring Center and it could be checked. If a site is porn and not redirecting to .xxx then the .com should be shut down immediately. The 2257 statement (I guess that's what it is) is a good sign that tells people what is porn.
What could it hurt to require .xxx TLD? I guess it makes too much sense to implement it. So did seat belts. |
|
CrzyCrakr
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Edgewater, MD
| Moving to .xxx would make it easier on the child filters. Until they do that I don't buy that they are trying to protect the children. They complain that is all over the place and the same ones complain when you try to put it on a single domain for easy blocking. I am sure they would complain if someone came up with a technology that would show porn but you could only see it if you were like 18 or older. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by CrzyCrakr :Moving to .xxx would make it easier on the child filters. Until they do that I don't buy that they are trying to protect the children. They complain that is all over the place and the same ones complain when you try to put it on a single domain for easy blocking. I am sure they would complain if someone came up with a technology that would show porn but you could only see it if you were like 18 or older. Filters do an excelent job now if one isn't to retarded. Fact is no child is "accidently" typing in analsex.com. Besides if a child did want to see porn on a blocked .xxx all he would need to do is find out what the IP address is on that site and type that in. How's a filter going to block that? |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to bigjimc
said by bigjimc :If porn sites were required to use the .xxx TLD and they were allowed to redirect their multiple .com addresses to a .xxx, wouldn't it be easier for people, businesses et al to block the .xxx TLD? I know there are a lot of ways around it and who is considered porn and then there is the first amendment but they would be allowed their free speech, just regulated like they are now. Anyone required to have a 2257?? would be required to be on the .xxx TLD. This should be an ICANN requirement. The whole point is that ICANN doesn't want to be nor should they be in the content regulation business. Also by the way 2257 is an AMERICAN law. One that non-american sites do not have to abide by. So how that requirement works you need to explain. Over 50% of the porn comes from OUTSIDE the US. people need ot stop think everyhting on the net comes from America and can be ruled by American laws. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to bigjimc
said by bigjimc :I know there are a lot of ways around it and who is considered porn and then there is the first amendment but they would be allowed their free speech, just regulated like they are now. Anyone required to have a 2257?? would be required to be on the .xxx TLD. If my company is located/headquartered outside of the US and employs models only outside the US, I could easily ask, "what's '2257'?".
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by nixen :said by bigjimc :I know there are a lot of ways around it and who is considered porn and then there is the first amendment but they would be allowed their free speech, just regulated like they are now. Anyone required to have a 2257?? would be required to be on the .xxx TLD. If my company is located/headquartered outside of the US and employs models only outside the US, I could easily ask, "what's '2257'?". EXACTLY.
By the way it's law pertianing to keeping records of models real names and adresses so the FBI can verify if they are in fact over 18.
Let's face it if some German site with German girls hosted in Germany had girls someone in the US thought was under 18 there's nothing they can do and they can't make that site follow 2257 rules and the FBI can't go to Germany and ask for documents proving she is. |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to axus
said by axus :Maybe you don't think there should be top level domains at all? Typing .com gets so redundant after a while... We need to rethink Internet naming conventions. TLD's were intended to facilitate easy to remember names and translate them to IP addresses. By design they provide rather coarse granularity, by country or public vs private enterprise. They were never intended to be part of a companies intellectual property portfolio and image.
There needs to be an even higher layer of abstraction - today that is mainly provided by search engines such as Google. Personally I rarely directly type in a URL. I do a Google search first, then go to the companies site.
/Tom
|
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
| reply to BF69
A good filter should do the domain resolution and block it.
I am also thinking of the inadvertent URLs out there that would be typed too. Some may not remember whitehouse.com used to be an adult site. And if someone in a school types a .xxx site they can't say it was an accident or ignorance.
I agree that if the computer is located in the corner of the family room and parents do their parenting then this shouldn't be an issue, it is just that looking forward five or 10 years, it may be necessary but unable to be implemented due to sheer internet size. The Internet is expanding beyond Moore's Law.
--
Just my 2 cents...Flame Lightly... |
|
