Jump to content



Photo

Proposal for porn domain revived


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 brettuk

brettuk

    Neowinian

  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 09-November 03

Posted 09 January 2007 - 13:38

http://news.bbc.co.u...ogy/6240725.stm

Source: BBC News

Proposal for porn domain revived

Plans to create an internet domain for pornographic websites have been resurrected.

The proposal for the .xxx domain was rejected in May 2006 by the overseer of the net's addressing system over fears about how it would be run.

But the proposal has won approval following promises by the domain's backer to actively police any site that signs up to use the .xxx suffix.

The plan has come under fire from pornographers and politicians.

History lesson

The idea of creating a net domain for pornography was first floated in 2001 and attempts to set up the system have had a troubled history.

The proposal was given approval in June 2005 by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) which oversees the net's addressing system.

Final approval was scheduled to take place in December 2005 but this was delayed until May 2006 when the proposal was abruptly dropped.

At the time Icann boss Paul Twomey said the decision was not "politically motivated" and now documents posted on the Icann site show that the decision was taken over worries about how sites signing up to use .xxx would be policed.

As a result, ICM Registry - the backer of the .xxx scheme - has given pledges that it will ensure sites signing up do not hit users with spam or spyware. Sites will also have to use a tagging system that accurately labels their content.

ICM must also put in place systems that stop children seeing the sites and ensure no .xxx sites are used to promote child pornography or any "practices that appeal to paedophiles or suggest the presence of child pornography on the site".

Icann has now invited the public to comment on the revised .xxx agreement. Those interested have until 5 February to comment.

In the past, plans for the .xxx domain have come under fire from conservative groups, politicians and even pornographers. Some operators of adult sites fear that adopting the .xxx domain would make it easier for such sites to be blocked en masse.

Critics have also noted that use of the .xxx domain is entirely voluntary and some suspect that few sites would sign up to use the suffix.

If final approval is won it is not yet clear when the domain will start operating.


#2 samg

samg

    Bite My Shiny Metal Ass

  • 5,359 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 02

Posted 09 January 2007 - 13:44

its a strange one this. I've always thought its silly. for instance...

a kid wants to look at some porn, he/she has to use some imagination to thing of what could be a site name. sara.com isnt going to be porn.

But if only porn can use the .xxx they can just type anything and no doubt it will be porn!

All they need to know is the xxx bit, not the rude words...

does that make sense?

#3 pmshen

pmshen

    Neowinian

  • 61 posts
  • Joined: 25-December 06

Posted 09 January 2007 - 13:46

that's making it easier for schools to block pr0n sites

#4 Neil

Neil

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,246 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 03
  • Location: UK

Posted 09 January 2007 - 13:46

its a strange one this. I've always thought its silly. for instance...

a kid wants to look at some porn, he/she has to use some imagination to thing of what could be a site name. sara.com isnt going to be porn.

But if only porn can use the .xxx they can just type anything and no doubt it will be porn!

All they need to know is the xxx bit, not the rude words...

does that make sense?


I think the idea though is that the family filter that comes with ISP's just block all .xxx domains, however I see you point, if the family does not apply the filter the kid knows where to go straight away.

#5 samg

samg

    Bite My Shiny Metal Ass

  • 5,359 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 02

Posted 09 January 2007 - 13:51

It would be making it easier to block, but there is so little people who do block this stuff, why would it make a difference if its .xxx instead?

There is always going to be sites that will stop using the .com anyway, even if there not allowed. Just as every illegal site.

#6 red.

red.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,010 posts
  • Joined: 28-May 03
  • Location: Kent, England

Posted 09 January 2007 - 13:51

its a strange one this. I've always thought its silly. for instance...

a kid wants to look at some porn, he/she has to use some imagination to thing of what could be a site name. sara.com isnt going to be porn.

But if only porn can use the .xxx they can just type anything and no doubt it will be porn!

All they need to know is the xxx bit, not the rude words...

does that make sense?


however, it would also be easier to block access to the domains. so it has it's good and bad points. i think they should use it.

#7 vetmarkjensen

markjensen

    Linux noob since Red Hat 5.1

  • 24,502 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 03
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • OS: GNU/Linux
  • Phone: Android and iPhone

Posted 09 January 2007 - 14:14

I don't question that this sounds like a good idea. After all, setting up an ".xxx" filter would be very easy.

The problem I have is who determines what content gets ".xxx"? What laws get used to enforce this when the servers can be hosted in any country?

Some porn for .xxx would be obvious. How about artistic photo sessions that happen to have some nude content? Soft-core porn? Overly provocative swimwear or underwear? (I can't probably post an example link to a current Aussie provider with some partially see-through swimwear). Perhaps pictures on family websites of new baby's birth or first bath?

The biggest problem with .xxx is that there is no cut-and-dried definition of "porn" and "not porn". Add in the lack of global enforcability/laws...

This is pointless.

#8 Hurmoth

Hurmoth

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,015 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 03
  • Location: Virginia

Posted 09 January 2007 - 15:02

I don't question that this sounds like a good idea. After all, setting up an ".xxx" filter would be very easy.

The problem I have is who determines what content gets ".xxx"? What laws get used to enforce this when the servers can be hosted in any country?

Some porn for .xxx would be obvious. How about artistic photo sessions that happen to have some nude content? Soft-core porn? Overly provocative swimwear or underwear? (I can't probably post an example link to a current Aussie provider with some partially see-through swimwear). Perhaps pictures on family websites of new baby's birth or first bath?

The biggest problem with .xxx is that there is no cut-and-dried definition of "porn" and "not porn". Add in the lack of global enforcability/laws...

This is pointless.

I agree with you Mark. It sounds like an awesome idea, but to be able to actually enforce this you'd need the corporation of other countries, which isn't going to happen. And on top of that, who would be in charge of deciding what is porn and what isn't. The Victoria's Secret website shows women wearing some pretty skimpy clothing, could that be considered porn? I think to some it might be. My point is, where does the government draw the line. And what about educational purposes, personally I'm not sure if I agree that what's on Wikipedia is for educational purposes. Maybe it was uploaded with innocent purposes, but that doesn't mean it is used for innocent purposes. So could you consider that porn? Again, some might.

A nice thought, but this is pointless and a waist of time.

#9 +M2Ys4U

M2Ys4U

    Your friendly neighbourhood Pirate!

  • 8,048 posts
  • Joined: 02-June 04
  • Location: England, UK, Europe

Posted 09 January 2007 - 15:45

I agree with you Mark. It sounds like an awesome idea, but to be able to actually enforce this you'd need the corporation of other countries, which isn't going to happen. And on top of that, who would be in charge of deciding what is porn and what isn't. The Victoria's Secret website shows women wearing some pretty skimpy clothing, could that be considered porn? I think to some it might be. My point is, where does the government draw the line. And what about educational purposes, personally I'm not sure if I agree that what's on Wikipedia is for educational purposes. Maybe it was uploaded with innocent purposes, but that doesn't mean it is used for innocent purposes. So could you consider that porn? Again, some might.

A nice thought, but this is pointless and a waist of time.

The people who will 'police' the .xxx will surely have the authority to revoke or blackhole the domain name at any times and will set the exact guidelines on what is an isn't considered appropriate for the domain.

#10 vetmarkjensen

markjensen

    Linux noob since Red Hat 5.1

  • 24,502 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 03
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • OS: GNU/Linux
  • Phone: Android and iPhone

Posted 09 January 2007 - 15:55

The people who will 'police' the .xxx will surely have the authority to revoke or blackhole the domain name at any times and will set the exact guidelines on what is an isn't considered appropriate for the domain.

Which will push that site to find a .com. or .hk, or .whatever.

Not a solution.

No legal authority plus no agreed-upon definition equals dismal failure.

#11 IceDogg

IceDogg

    Dead man walking

  • 3,288 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 04
  • Location: Arkansas/US

Posted 09 January 2007 - 19:51

I agree with markjensen and Hurmoth. .xxx isn't a solution. And there was a time when I thought this would be a good idea. I have changed my mind. Set aside the examples they have about other countries not cooperating and defining porn. What about Newgroups? P2P so on. .xxx will do NOT stop online porn. It may change the way it's done, somewhat, but that's about it.

#12 +ChuckFinley

ChuckFinley

    member_id=28229

  • 9,677 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 03

Posted 09 January 2007 - 19:58

I cant wait to get hold of a .xxx domain lol, it would be great for my "potential" business idea.

#13 Tomo

Tomo

    IT Engineer

  • 866 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 01
  • Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Posted 09 January 2007 - 20:08

its a strange one this. I've always thought its silly. for instance...

a kid wants to look at some porn, he/she has to use some imagination to thing of what could be a site name. sara.com isnt going to be porn.

But if only porn can use the .xxx they can just type anything and no doubt it will be porn!

All they need to know is the xxx bit, not the rude words...

does that make sense?

A kid can just type 'porn' into google so it doesn't matter what the domain name is!

Having a .xxx for adult sites makes sense, it makes it easier for parents/schools to block inappropriate content. It's not to stop online porn, it is there to help make it harder for kids to get their hands on it. It would be nice to think that the co-operative/legal porn sites will move to .xxx and the ones left are either dodgy or just unco-operative.

#14 tiagosilva29

tiagosilva29

    Looking for a job in Lisbon

  • 12,213 posts
  • Joined: 08-May 04

Posted 09 January 2007 - 20:30

In most countries pornography is a legitimate commercial/business venture, thus, the natural attribution to .com and .biz

If theoretically they could move everything to .xxx , wouldn't we expect that the companies could charge the governments, etc for compensations?

#15 jbrunt1990

jbrunt1990

    Neowinian

  • 572 posts
  • Joined: 12-June 05
  • Location: U.K

Posted 09 January 2007 - 20:34

I think the idea though is that the family filter that comes with ISP's just block all .xxx domains, however I see you point, if the family does not apply the filter the kid knows where to go straight away.


They would just google it.