5 ms·
ICANN Approves New .XXX Top Level Domain
- MatthewPhillips 16y agoSo who else is camping out the night these go live to snatch (see what I did there?) one of the premium domains to cash in on later?
- fourspace 16y agoI think it's high time to register comcastsu.xxx
- alanh 16y agoMy ISP is less likely to be available for long: coxsu.xxx
- simonsarris 16y agoI have a feeling some countries (namely UK and Australia, and almost certainly all nations with China-like policies) will jump all over new legislation in order to make using these names very annoying, or at least limiting their potential exposure (ha) compared to using typical .com domains.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- GHFigs 16y agoWhy, why, why?
- JeremyBanks 16y agoTo make more money for ICANN, probably.
- alanh 16y agoNo, but close. Ex, ex, ex.
- BoppreH 16y agoHere's my biggest fear: An internet provider blocks the domain. At first, nobody will complain because "every other media does the same"; then someone will complain, but everyone else will scourge this person as a "perv" and before we realize we have a huge precedent against net neutrality.
- chaosmachine 16y agoOr, significantly worse, someone writes a law making it illegal to host "adult content" outside of .xxx domains. It's a lot easier to legislate/enforce filtering when all the "bad stuff" is conveniently on a single TLD.
- BoppreH 16y agoDamn me for not noticing that. I can already hear it: "think of the children!"
- cookiecaper 16y agoHaving all of the "bad stuff" under one TLD is the whole point, obviously. Government censorship is bad, I agree, but I don't think it's that realistic to think the government will take porn offline. Maybe I'm naive. I like .xxx because it makes private filtering and monitoring much simpler.
- kmfrk 16y agoIf it weren't because it's so hard to define "adult content", I'd be slightly worried as well. Heck, Scandinavian news channels show boobs like it's nothing (because it is, but cultural norms and all that). Besides, I don't think the internet is so centralized that this could be enforced - people will just register from another country with laxer jurisdiction.
- __david__ 16y agoAn easy way to combat that is to start hosting great non-porn content on .xxx domains. I intend to do this from the get-go.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- afhof 16y agoWill this also act as a TLD for triple distilled spirits?
- phlux 16y agoBack in the day - there was an article I read about "The never ending sex.com battle" which was about the sex.com domain squatting/stealing debacle... I thought it was a great name... so I registered neverendingsex.com thinking I could easily monitize it based on the fact that sex.com as a landing page was making several million per year... But I didnt do anything with the domain and let it die, and someone else grabbed it.
- jedsmith 16y agoIf the operator gets its way, the .xxx TLD will reportedly have three sunrise periods[1]: The first period would allow owners of porn-related trademarks to claim their .xxx domain names and use them as normal, ... the second would enable non-porn companies that don’t want their brands associated with adult material to basically “turn off” their trademarks in .xxx domains, paying a one-time fee. ... The third proposed sunrise would allow owners of non-trademarked porn domains in other TLDs, such as .com, to get their equivalent .xxx using an automated Whois check. A comment from the author on this item indicates that they hope to begin sunrises in June, landrush in September. I have a feeling they will be expensive. [1]: http://domainnamewire.com/2010/12/07/xxx-will-have-three-sunrise-periods/ http://domainnamewire.com/2010/12/07/xxx-will-have-three-sun...
- nooneelse 16y agoAnd when the flow of money from that second .xxx sunrise category starts to slow down, they can introduce .sucks on which, for a one-time fee, each trademark holder can park a "no it doesn't" rebuttal page. Then .isterrible and then .OwesUsMoreMoney .
- bkudria 16y agoI want a .iloveicann
- varjag 16y agoThis is certainly going to be the most blocked TLD ever.
- BoppreH 16y agoI think there are sysadmins blocking it preemptively as we speak.
- bkudria 16y agoThis whole TLD thing is stupid. Why do I have to choose amongst the .com/.net/.org buckets? (Or even worse, register all of them to pre-empt squatters.)
- dboyd 16y agoIt's not entirely stupid. Although, if you are arguing specifically against the non-regional TLDs, then I would probably agree with you. .gov was a bad idea. .gov.us (or .gov.ca.us) is not. Outside of obviously regional things. amazon.de and amazon.ca serve their purpose fairly well. I would agree that the difference between ibm.com and ibm.org and ibm.net is impractical at best.
- bkudria 16y agoAgreed. .gov was a bad idea, along with .com/.net/.org/.co/.mobi/.me/.biz/.info/.etc I don't see the need to have a distinction between amazon.de and amazon.ca. If Amazon wants to segment by country, they can do that on their own, not by offloading onto DNS. Getting rid of also silly things like .co.uk would be great, but raise lots of uncomfortable questions. Ideally, DNS is would be nationally/politically blind, with the exception of government entities under .gov.*.{gTLD}
- jarek 16y ago.me is a ccTLD is for Montenegro.
- bkudria 16y agoThat's not how GoDaddy is selling it. One could make an argument that it ceases to become a ccTLD once anyone can register it for "novelty"/domain-hacking use.
- jarek 16y agoGodaddy doesn't operate the registry for .me. ccTLD is just a class of TLDs established with a specific purpose. The purpose might get de facto expanded at the country's discretion, but that doesn't obviate the original purpose. The people of Montenegro would disagree with your claim that .me was a bad idea. With no geographic-based TLDs, you introduce a need to disambiguate non-related brands which would have been perfectly distinguished by ccTLDs. Compare http://www.era.mk/ http://www.era.mk/ and http://www.era.pl/ http://www.era.pl/ - neither organization is controversial in its right to the TLD in its country, but one or both would have to settle for a disambiguation otherwise.
- rmc 16y agoI disapprove of this cause it will make it easier for antisex campaigners to try to censor the internet. You could hack the system by only using a .xxx domain for your personal emails when dealing with the state. Tax man: "we can't send you that legal notice because our software blocks that domain" me: "not my problem"
- bartonfink 16y agoI like your hack, but I'm fairly certain anything important WILL get to you. To be honest, I'm not sure I've had any government dealings that were conducted over e-mail - they're all snail-mail, which I can't stop by living in a red-light district (the real-world equivalent of a .xxx domain I suppose).
- cookiecaper 16y agoI approve of this cause because it will make it easier for parents, corporations, and others with an interest in preventing access to adult material to do so. To me, this makes the case of people that want real, imposed censorship weaker, because you can say, "Just block xxx and be done with it". With .com, they can say that someone needs to protect you because you might accidentally go to a bad .com website or something like that, so active filtration is needed. If .xxx becomes the standard and the .com just redirects, it will be easy for people who don't want porn to not get it, people who do want porn to get it, and people charged with filtration to relax a little bit. Why is this bad? How does it strengthen the argument that the internet should be actively censored?
- samfoo 16y agoHow does it weaken the argument that the internet should be actively censored? Just because .xxx exists doesn't mean there won't be "pornography" or "offensive materials" on .com/.{foo} addresses. This just provides an excuse for policy and law makers to write legislation saying "Pornography can only be on *.xxx domains". It's naive to think this will have any effect whatsoever on the availability of porn to your average < 18 year old anywhere in the world.
- rglover 16y agoIn regard to stratifying domains and simplifying the process of omitting adult content, I think this is a great idea. While the "evil empire" image is easily applied to ISPs (in regard to purposively blocking access to these sites), realistically, unless they want to lose a whole hell of a lot of business, they'll leave it alone.
- drdaeman 16y agoI bet most ISPs in China don't want to even think of any content filtering, but Great Chinese Firewall is still a reality.
- protomyth 16y agoSo, what is the technical definition of content that should be in this TLD?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- kmfrk 16y agoIf I were a good-looking female actress in showbiz (0/4, dammit), I'd love the prospect of seeing "<myname>.xxx" on the web. Most of these people already get fan sites with some permutation of their full name. (Hyphenation, .net, .org). Maybe now we'll see a common trend if <air quotes> "fan sites".
- jarin 16y agoAs somebody who used to work at an adult company (and has a different adult company as one of my clients), I'll say that most adult companies are probably excited about the idea of making it easy for parents to block these domains, but not excited about the possibility of being forced into using them (and the subsequent possiblity of ISPs blocking .xxx domains en masse). Some of adult sites' biggest customers are in countries where porn is illegal, and giving ISPs an easy way to block the entire industry would hurt adult sites even more than they are already. On a side note, why hasn't a .app TLD been created yet?
- wmf 16y agoThe process for creating TLDs is very slow; even if someone proposed .app on July 10, 2008, ICANN would still be pondering the process for evaluating it.
- droz 16y agoI can see why people would want this, but it sets an interesting precedent. Now that we have a "NC-17" TLD, are we going to start seeing "R", "PG-13", "PG" and "G" TLDs as well? Likewise, if the internet is going to have a redlight district, is it going to have a financial district, china town and so on?