Log in

View Full Version : Stage set for '.xxx' Internet addresses


Lilith
06-02-2005, 07:37 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Internet's primary oversight body approved a plan Wednesday to create a virtual red-light district, setting the stage for pornographic Web sites to use new addresses ending in "xxx"

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers said it would begin negotiations with ICM Registry Inc., run by British businessman Stuart Lawley, to iron out technical issues and prices for the new Web addresses.

Adult-oriented sites, a $12 billion industry, probably could begin buying "xxx" addresses as early as fall or winter depending on ICM's plans, ICANN spokesman Kieran Baker said.

The new pornography suffix was among 10 under consideration by the regulatory group, which also recently approved addresses ending in "jobs" and "travel."

ICM contends the "xxx" Web addresses, which it plans to sell for $60 a year, will protect children from online smut if adult sites voluntarily adopt the suffix so filtering software used by families can more effectively block access to those sites.

The $60 price is roughly ten times higher than prices other companies charge for dot-com names.

"It will further help to protect kids," said John Morris, staff counsel at the Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology. Morris predicted some adult sites will choose to buy "xxx" Web addresses but others will continue to use dot-com.

Shadow_Kitty
06-06-2005, 07:09 PM
The big ones will go .xxx for sure - the extra cash is beans for something like Playboy. Little places, like everyone's actual favourites? Nope...

lonelyarmywife
06-06-2005, 08:08 PM
this is an optional thing...it won't be mandated taht all adult websites move to ".xxx" right?

gekkogecko
06-07-2005, 04:24 PM
It's optional, yes. Andit's actualy a good idea. Those of us with our shit together and who actually want porn can find it easily, while the mind-control prudes can just as easily avoid it.


Though I am glad it's not mandatory.

dicksbro
06-28-2005, 02:14 AM
Off-hand, I'd agree it sounds like a good idea ... but, I wonder why I feel so mis-trustful of anything government recommended? :rolleyes2

Belial
07-28-2005, 08:19 AM
This has been suggested and knocked back time and time again. I'd like to know what's different this time. RFC 3675 (ftp://ftp.is.co.za/rfc/rfc3675.txt) identifies a few of the problems. Note that it gets a bit technical in parts.

dicksbro
07-28-2005, 12:30 PM
Belial, that reference to the proposal and the pro and con arguments is very interesting. Thanks for making it available. Haven't read the whole thing, but already I've become convinced my initial doubts about the viability of what (on the surface) sounds like a good idea was well-founded.

Isn't it amazing how a simple and sensible idea can become so complicated and almost ridiculous to implement?

Lilith
08-17-2005, 04:56 AM
Close but no cigar (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/08/16/internet.pornography.ap/index.html)

jseal
08-17-2005, 06:07 AM
Gentlefolk,

The process has already taken five years; what's one more month? :)

dicksbro
08-20-2005, 08:11 AM
^^^^^ :confused:

Somewhere between 30 and 31 days?? :rolleyes2

Did I win ... huh? :D



JK jseal

jseal
08-20-2005, 09:48 AM
dicksbro,

Yup, yup! :)

Still don't think much of the idea though.

Oldfart
08-28-2005, 06:29 PM
28 and 31!!

What about poor old February? huh? huh?

Everyone forgets poor old . . . . um. . oh, February.