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.
william(at)elan.net wrote:
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.
Because once you separate them out, the government is free to slap a tax on
.xxx websites.
Geo.
Well,
It is always the same thing with this type of thread...
Lets try to expand beyond the obvious shall we?
Francisco Obispo wrote:
Thus spake "Alain Hebert" <ahebert@pubnix.net>
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 exactly which legislature has the authority to prevent porn sites registering in any other gTLD/ccTLD?
S
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
The problem is that it's a TLD, not .xxx.us. What standard of "porn"
do you intend to enforce? Remember there's places that have Internet
where females are still supposed to keep their faces covered in public.
Besides which, "if we can corral them in it" looks like a very implausible
concept.
RFC3675.
the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort.
the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial, as the cctlds cover that,
and the authority, nominally, is a 501(c)(3) in marina del rey, and,
purely contractual, as is the registry restricted to cooperative entities
and the registry restricted to aviation entities.
we are spared having to contest .xxx registrants who failed to meet the
terms of the sponsored tld -- intolerably bland content.
Absolutly. I don't see how existing sites are ever going to accept
having to move to address in particular domain (and pay 100x extra for
it) or that there is any good way to force such rules across entire globe. That .xxx always seemed to me to be heavily ICANN-politics motivated
with benefits primarily to those running new registry. Good that they finally come around to kill this thing. Although the bad thing is that some will make a case that it happened because USG told them to do so
and as such push to replace ICANN with something that answers to ITU. Anyway, this is getting way OT for this list...
So ICANN did come to their senses finally and prevented another collission
in balkan namespace 
; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any XXX @TLD2.NEWDOTNET.NET
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 34062
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;XXX. IN ANY
;; ANSWER SECTION:
XXX. 7200 IN NS tld1.newdotnet.net.
XXX. 7200 IN NS tld2.newdotnet.net.
XXX. 86400 IN SOA ns0.newdotnet.net. hostmaster.new.net. 1147374001 86400 300 15000000 600
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
XXX. 7200 IN NS tld1.newdotnet.net.
XXX. 7200 IN NS tld2.newdotnet.net.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
tld1.newdotnet.net. 604800 IN A 66.151.57.201
tld2.newdotnet.net. 604800 IN A 64.211.63.138
;; Query time: 232 msec
;; SERVER: 64.211.63.138#53(TLD2.NEWDOTNET.NET)
;; WHEN: Thu May 11 21:40:08 2006
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 187
Thankyou ICANN for your continued support of alternative roots.
Cheers
Peter and Karin Dambier
william(at)elan.net wrote:
If you think *that's* why .XXX died, then I have a small bridge to sell you providing access to Manhattan island.
Cheers,
D
Negative. 92% of the root is under US jurisdiction with most ccTLD's
riding on that infrastructure. I'm in the process of analyzing that
now. I'll let you know what the number comes out to, but I bet it's
close.
-M<
I'll offer you advice once offered to me. Read the sign on the padded
cell: "Do not feed the troll."
Peter's about 51 cards shy of a full deck when it comes to TLDs. I
still have a back-of-my-head suspicion that he's a new alter ago of
Jim Fleming. <g>
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.
The major problem with this is that many other governments have "dangerous
ideas" that they'd also like to be easily able to identify and isolate as
well. If the United States gets to corral porn, why can't China corral
Democracy? Why can't Russia corral advocates of "terrorism" (which some
might consider independence).
I think it would be an incredibly short-sighted policy on the part of the
U.S. government to restrict the Internet in the hopes of controlling things
like gambling and pornography. The precedent of government isolating
"dangerous ideas" will be adopted by many other governments and we will have
no sound ideological grounds to oppose.
DS
David Schwartz wrote:
The major problem with this is that many other governments have "dangerous
ideas" that they'd also like to be easily able to identify and isolate as
well. If the United States gets to corral porn, why can't China corral
Democracy? Why can't Russia corral advocates of "terrorism" (which some
might consider independence).I think it would be an incredibly short-sighted policy on the part of the
U.S. government to restrict the Internet in the hopes of controlling things
like gambling and pornography. The precedent of government isolating
"dangerous ideas" will be adopted by many other governments and we will have
no sound ideological grounds to oppose.
Excellent points.
I question then why we even have a need for any TLDs. Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog. This would make life soooooo much easier for many many companies that are legally forced to have to register every freaking TLD in their name just to protect IP etc. I would imagine that the US Govt would back this proposal simply because of the problems with a particular TLD for www.whitehouse.
For the sake of discussion, please don't branch into an argument about scalability. 
-Jim P.
For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall that we actually HAD a hostname file that we traded around...
Why do we even need domain names at all outside our own entities for network
management, mail,and a few minor services now that we have google?
-M<
Fred Baker wrote:
Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall that we actually HAD a hostname file that we traded around...
Let's not go backwards now....
Note: I didn't advocate replacing DNS with host files. I'll attempt to clarify: If X number of DNS servers can server Y number of TLDs, why can't X number of completely re-designed DNS servers handle just root domain names without a TLD.
Examples:
www.microsoft
smtp.microsoft
www.google
www.yahoo
mail.yahoo
Why have a TLD when for most of the world:
www.cnn.CO.UK is forwarded to www.cnn.COM
www.microsoft.NET is forwarded to www.microsoft.COM
www.google.NET is forwarded to www.google.COM
etc., etc.
There are very few arguments that I've heard for even having TLDs in the first place. The most common one was "Businesses will use .COM, Networks will use .NET, Organizations and Garden Clubs will use .ORG". When in reality Businesses scoop up all the TLDs in their name/interest.
Why does it matter if your routers and switches are in DNS as 123.company.NET vrs 123.routers.company
I do understand that today's DNS system was designed with TLDs in mind, and probably couldn't just switch over night. But why can't a next-gen system be put in place that puts www.microsoft and www.google right where they go now whether you use .net, .com, .org, or probably any other TLD?
-Jim P.
Fred Baker wrote:
Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall that we actually HAD a hostname file that we traded around...
Let's not go backwards now....
Note: I didn't advocate replacing DNS with host files. I'll attempt to clarify: If X number of DNS servers can server Y number of TLDs, why can't X number of completely re-designed DNS servers handle just root domain names without a TLD.
Examples:
www.microsoft
smtp.microsoft
www.google
www.yahoo
mail.yahooWhy have a TLD when for most of the world:
www.cnn.CO.UK is forwarded to www.cnn.COM
www.microsoft.NET is forwarded to www.microsoft.COM
www.google.NET is forwarded to www.google.COM
etc., etc.
There are very few arguments that I've heard for even having TLDs in the first place. The most common one was "Businesses will use .COM, Networks will use .NET, Organizations and Garden Clubs will use .ORG". When in reality Businesses scoop up all the TLDs in their name/interest.
Yes, but that was when you actually wouldn't dare get a .org for yourself unless
you really were qualified under the guidelines. Same for .net. The distinctions
have been meaningless for quite some time. They are simply placeholders.
Why does it matter if your routers and switches are in DNS as 123.company.NET vrs 123.routers.company
I do understand that today's DNS system was designed with TLDs in mind, and probably couldn't just switch over night. But why can't a next-gen system be put in place that puts www.microsoft and www.google right where they go now whether you use .net, .com, .org, or probably any other TLD?
Im having an offline discussion with a list member and I'll ask, why does it matter if
you have a domain name if a directory can hold everything you need to know about them
via key words and ip-addrs, NAT's and all?
-M<
It's all about authority, literally and figuratively.
Google might be a good search engine, but I don't control google like I control my zones.
Being that google is evil now, I don't think I want to give them authority for my zones.
-David
I think there is a place for that discussion; a directory would allow for containment, which might allow the same character string to be used as a name by different groups if they have sufficiently low probability of needing to communicate. There are other ways to handle this as well. You might google some out-dated drafts by John Klensin that mention such a concept.
As someone else mentioned, there is this authority thing, though. So who manages this name directory? If there is a directory managed by a central agency of some sort that in turn hands LDAP queries (or whatever) off to local instances of directories managed by companies, how does that differ (apart from the use of a different transport) from what DNS does today? Is that central directory-managing authority someone we have to collectively agree to, and how do we do that? How do changes in that directory get made? And if there is no central directory, then basically we have the size and complexity of the .com, .net, .org, and other large namespaces to contend with - just how do we determine that www.renesys translates to 69.84.130.137 and not to 198.133.219.25? How do we distribute that information, and assure ourselves that it got distributed correctly?
I'm not saying it is impossible, or even difficult. I am, however, pointing out that the job DNS does today would have to be done in the new regime, and would have to be done at least as well, and would be fairly likely to have many of the same characteristics, at least when taken in the large.
Now, as to ccTLDs vs gTLDs, if anyone wants to eliminate one or the other they get my vote. I think that gTLDs mostly create a mess, and if I were King they would have been eliminated a long time ago. But that is the opinion of one person, and is probably worth what you paid to receive it.