[90232] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Bonomi)
Thu May 11 14:01:07 2006
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 12:57:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> From owner-nanog@merit.edu Thu May 11 12:41:20 2006
> Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:40:22 -0400
> From: Alain Hebert <ahebert@pubnix.net>
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:46:40 -0400
> > From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
> > To: ip@v2.listbox.com
> > Subject: [IP] ICANN rejects .xxx domain
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > As reported in:
> >
> > http://abcnews.go.com/Business/print?id=1947950
> >
> > ICANN has reversed their earlier preliminary approval, and has now
> > rejected the "dot-xxx" adult materials top-level domain. I applaud
> > this wise decision by ICANN, which should simultaneously please both
> > anti-porn and free speech proponents, where opposition to the TLD
> > has been intense, though for totally disparate reasons.
> >
> > Nick's AP piece referenced above notes that there are still
> > Congressional efforts to mandate such a TLD. It is important
> > to work toward ensuring that these do not gain traction.
>
> Why?
>
> If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere
> else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there.
And _that_ is *precisely* "why not". <grin>
When you figure out _how_ to accomplish the 'and' part of your statement,
*world-wide*, and _how_long_ it would take to do so, *AND*CAN*GET*UNIVERSAL*
*AGREEMENT* about what has to be inside the coral(sic), well, then, and -only-
then can one consider 'what _useful_ purpose' such a TLD would serve.
Note also: attempting to impose additional restrictions on _existant_,
registered domains would likely constitute breach of contract. With
big liabilities attached -- look at what the hijacking of 'sex.com' ended
up costing the registrar that let it happen.
Restricting future domain registrations _in_an_exsiting_TLD_ raises a
separate can of worms, regarding existing registry operator and registrar
contracts.
