[81262] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: orsc root server?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen Massar)
Thu Jun 2 08:48:31 2005
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, peter@peter-dambier.de,
Chris Beggy <chrisb@kippona.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0506020322080.27968@sokol.elan.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:45:26 +0200
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--=-H6mTDc32HqW44J1GFXzl
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 03:28 -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>=20
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>=20
> > http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/06/01/internet.porn.ap/index.html
>=20
> |ICM contends the "xxx" Web addresses, which it plans to sell for $60 a=20
> |year, will protect children from online smut if adult sites voluntarily=20
> |adopt the suffix so filtering software used by families can more=20
> |effectively block access to those sites
>=20
> How is charging $60/year going to protect children from "online smut"?
> if anything it'll still be that less reputable will continue to use
> less expensive domains.
IANA doesn't read rfc3675 I guess....
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt
RFC 3675 - .sex Considered Dangerous
8<---------
Periodically there are proposals to mandate the use of a special top
level name or an IP address bit to flag "adult" or "unsafe" material
or the like. This document explains why this is an ill considered
idea from the legal, philosophical, and particularly, the technical
points of view.
--------->8
or to make it very easy, for the folks who don't want to read it, here
is a nice ascii-art picture from the RFC:
8<-----------------
+-----------------------------------------+
| . (root) zone |
| .com .org .net .us .uk .sex ... |
+---+---------------------------+---------+
| |
V V
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
| .com zone | | .sex zone |
| example.com ... | | example.sex ... |
+---------------+----+ +---------------+----+
| |
V V
+---------------------+ +----------------------+
| example.com zone | | example.sex zone |
| | | |
| purity.example.com -+--+ +---+- obscene.example.sex |
| virtue.example.com | | | | porn.example.sex |
| | | | | | | |
+------+--------------+ | | +--------+-------------+
| +------+------+ |
| +-------------+ | |
V V V V
+-----------------+ +------------------+
| Virtuous Data | | Salacious Data |
+-----------------+ +------------------+
-------------->8
Now can IANA stop doing silly stuff like earning money and start working
on managing IP resources properly?
> Also I'm curious how much of that $60 will go to ICANN packet? If not
> much then ICM is getting really good deal, amazingly good deal, a monopol=
y
> heaven in fact that reminds me of another TLD decision mentioned at nanog
> that ICANN is about to make official...
per country tld's was a good idea, they should have required [com|org|
ersonal].cc-tld though. The addition of com/net/org. could then be used
for international stuff. All those silly new things
like .jobs/travel/museum/aero etc don't make sense, those are either
org's or com's.
Too late to fix that now...
Greets,
Jeroen
--=-H6mTDc32HqW44J1GFXzl
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
iD8DBQBCnv9mKaooUjM+fCMRArqAAKCcSjawIU87ErP/VTbwnOicfk4qnwCfXVtM
jI245NXZK1wqKP4aLnubvXk=
=QyYA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-H6mTDc32HqW44J1GFXzl--
