Porn domain plan revived

Lincoln Russell 9 Jan, 2007 at 6:43am ET Article published in Tech

The BBC gives a good history lesson as to why the proposal previously failed, and what changes have been made to make it viable again.

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.

Source: BBC

Comments

9 Jan 2007 ~ 9:43am CB I support the new domain, even if only so that I can nolonger accidentally go to an illicit website by accidentaly mistyping a different domain.
9 Jan 2007 ~ 9:52am QCH Whitehouse.com!!!! That got me a few years ago....
9 Jan 2007 ~ 10:02am Thrax Yeah, I support this.
9 Jan 2007 ~ 10:16am Kwitko Will be easier to screen out spam.
9 Jan 2007 ~ 11:51am shwaip

Thrax wrote:

Yeah, I support this.

Let's hope that ICANN reads this. It's got thrax's backing.

tfa wrote:

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.

Sort of my guess too. Existing sites will try to grab the .xxx equivalent and then make one redirect to the other.
9 Jan 2007 ~ 12:38pm CB Yes. It wont work unless it's mandatory.
9 Jan 2007 ~ 1:04pm profdlp

CB Droege wrote:

Yes. It wont work unless it's mandatory.

Agreed. I also agree that it should be.
9 Jan 2007 ~ 1:50pm Thrax

shwaip wrote:

Let's hope that ICANN reads this. It's got thrax's backing.

That's right, sir. I demand convenience, and the .xxx will make a couple things convenient. Like filtering spam and... Other things.
9 Jan 2007 ~ 5:12pm clear_darkness I dunno if this is completely plausible in the legal sense of things...but I don't see how it can be a bad thing for anyone...makes it easier for those looking to find, easier for those avoiding to not find, and for those that shouldn't be finding to be controlled.
9 Jan 2007 ~ 7:44pm CB It's bad for sites whose entire bussiness model is based on people finding the site on accident.

Try mistyping google.com a couple of different way, for example... Those sites wouldn't exist if they were required to use a different domain extension.

Personally, I don't feel that's a legitamate bussiness model anyway, so I don't care if their bussiness suffers.
19 Jan 2007 ~ 6:18pm sectorz715 I love the way how this issue comes up every now and then, and it gets tabled every time.
19 Jan 2007 ~ 8:09pm Leonardo

It's bad for sites whose entire bussiness model is based on people finding the site on accident.

Which makes it good.