I actually find this structured approach to be quite interesting, despite the cynical, money-minting glee with which it will no doubt be executed. How far the industry has come since the days of faxing in my passport to register a .com.
Allow me to translate, for those that were lulled into a hypnotic trance by the Patrick Stewart sound alike:
Sunrise A: Additional adult domain cost! Your existing domain strategy just got more expensive to maintain unless you want your SEO to get nuked.
Sunrise B: Brand Blackmail, early period. Otherwise known as "That's a nice non-adult themed brand you have, it would terrible to see something happen to it."
Landrush: Laughing all the way to the bank. 18 days? Try 18 hours.
General Availability: Gone, all the good names are.
For what it's worth, it looks like the Sunrise B is for blocking/making it impossible to register .xxx domains with your registered trademark such as MarthaStewart.xxx instead of having to pay to register (and presumably not use) MarthaStewart.xxx
If any other TLDs work this way, I don't know of them.
Regardless of your opinion of adult content, this stuff makes far less practical sense than things like RTA labeling http://www.rtalabel.org/. All that RTA requires is a simple meta tag, and it's free.
Content filters abide by it, and it doesn't disrupt existing business.
.xxx is just an effort to make money with another new TLD. It doesn't make the web safer and it doesn't make content-filters simpler or more accurate.
Since no one is proposing forcing sites to use .xxx, those concerned with truly making the web safer should really be looking for the most effective way to get wide penetration of a labeling solution, and a meta tag is about as simple as simple gets.
Since no one is proposing forcing sites to use .xxx,
No one has to propose it openly since the threat is implicit. Regardless of what is said at the moment of creation of the domain, all that a would-be censor has to do is wait [Internet-memory-erasure-period] and say "hey, we created XXX because all the porn is supposed to only be here" and viola.
I disagree. Setting aside the problem of global top level domains, which I think are a bad idea, tagging adult sites via domain names greatly facilitates filtering as compared to meta tags.
Meta tags are an application level concept and so they have to be implemented at that level via browsers or HTTP proxies, or deep packet inspection.
DNS based filtering can be done more simply via network layer devices without having to look at the application level content. So DNS filters would work even if the website content was encrypted, for example.
From an administrative point of view it is much easier to control and manage network infrastructure than it is to control individual browsers or application level gateways.
The consensus seems that the .XXX TLD is just a money grab because it's not forcing adult content onto this TLD, and there is no practical way to even do that.
Therefore, wouldn't a counterpart TLD, such as .SAFE, actually make more sense? Companies that target children, such as Walt Disney, could provide a guaranteed safe sub-internet. With wikipedia's new filtering options, they could put a wiki-subset on .SAFE with maximum filtering on.
It would be hugely costly to police, and so probably the most expensive TLD ever. But some companies would surely still be able to profit.
The counterpart "safe" TLD is part of a much bigger content curation problem that is evolving in the Internet. Some parents out there are not at all OK with Disney content, even, some will want to leave boobs in but head-crushing out, etc, etc. Properly tailoring to people's many shades of content filtering seems like a job for dedicated browser-recognized crypto certificate chains.
This way, different consumers can directly delegate trust to a custom choice of entities that already are engaged in this space (e.g. all the "family focus" agencies), instead of fighting over a centralized TLD committee.
This is what the KIDS.US domain was supposed to be. Their directory lists fewer than 10 sites that successfully signed up. All of the content is dead or stale. Just how do you police any sort of dynamic, interesting, ever changing content?
Not quite countless. There are 307 TLDs today, up from about 250 a decade ago. Most of this growth as been in non-Latin IDN domains (There are 21 gTLDs today, including .XXX)
There will however be a sea change in the future, ICANN is intending the open up applications for new gTLDs in 2012 that could see hundreds more TLDs added. So if adding the dozen or so new gTLDs in the last 10 years has seemed countless, it will get worse.
The temptation to put a useful, non-porn site on a subdomain of .xxx is quite large. Just to make the point that .xxx is useless and for the large number of clicks that it will no doubt bring.
Elementary programming course on 'thesecretcode.xxx'. Legions of porn seeking people converted to programmers, if slashdot is any indication that should be a perfect match.
It reminds me of the .mobi silliness. Why would a TLD, meant for the mobile devices, require one more keystroke, AND for the unfortunate people stuck using old phones with telephone keypads, require hitting 6 twice?
ICANN is a corrupt undemocratic non-representative self-important parasite on the internet who's main concern is increasing their budget so they can schedule more of their all expense paid meetings in Puerto Rico or Costa Rica.
[+] [-] Adaptive|14 years ago|reply
Allow me to translate, for those that were lulled into a hypnotic trance by the Patrick Stewart sound alike:
Sunrise A: Additional adult domain cost! Your existing domain strategy just got more expensive to maintain unless you want your SEO to get nuked.
Sunrise B: Brand Blackmail, early period. Otherwise known as "That's a nice non-adult themed brand you have, it would terrible to see something happen to it."
Landrush: Laughing all the way to the bank. 18 days? Try 18 hours.
General Availability: Gone, all the good names are.
[+] [-] MartinCron|14 years ago|reply
For what it's worth, it looks like the Sunrise B is for blocking/making it impossible to register .xxx domains with your registered trademark such as MarthaStewart.xxx instead of having to pay to register (and presumably not use) MarthaStewart.xxx
If any other TLDs work this way, I don't know of them.
[+] [-] andrewvc|14 years ago|reply
Content filters abide by it, and it doesn't disrupt existing business.
.xxx is just an effort to make money with another new TLD. It doesn't make the web safer and it doesn't make content-filters simpler or more accurate.
Since no one is proposing forcing sites to use .xxx, those concerned with truly making the web safer should really be looking for the most effective way to get wide penetration of a labeling solution, and a meta tag is about as simple as simple gets.
[+] [-] joe_the_user|14 years ago|reply
No one has to propose it openly since the threat is implicit. Regardless of what is said at the moment of creation of the domain, all that a would-be censor has to do is wait [Internet-memory-erasure-period] and say "hey, we created XXX because all the porn is supposed to only be here" and viola.
[+] [-] gwright|14 years ago|reply
Meta tags are an application level concept and so they have to be implemented at that level via browsers or HTTP proxies, or deep packet inspection.
DNS based filtering can be done more simply via network layer devices without having to look at the application level content. So DNS filters would work even if the website content was encrypted, for example.
From an administrative point of view it is much easier to control and manage network infrastructure than it is to control individual browsers or application level gateways.
[+] [-] jackpirate|14 years ago|reply
The XXX in the URL makes the content filtering human readable. That is hugely important, and a service that can only be provided by a TLD.
That said, I agree that this is nothing but a new way to heckle money.
[+] [-] kosei|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackpirate|14 years ago|reply
Therefore, wouldn't a counterpart TLD, such as .SAFE, actually make more sense? Companies that target children, such as Walt Disney, could provide a guaranteed safe sub-internet. With wikipedia's new filtering options, they could put a wiki-subset on .SAFE with maximum filtering on.
It would be hugely costly to police, and so probably the most expensive TLD ever. But some companies would surely still be able to profit.
[+] [-] mmatants|14 years ago|reply
The counterpart "safe" TLD is part of a much bigger content curation problem that is evolving in the Internet. Some parents out there are not at all OK with Disney content, even, some will want to leave boobs in but head-crushing out, etc, etc. Properly tailoring to people's many shades of content filtering seems like a job for dedicated browser-recognized crypto certificate chains.
This way, different consumers can directly delegate trust to a custom choice of entities that already are engaged in this space (e.g. all the "family focus" agencies), instead of fighting over a centralized TLD committee.
[+] [-] rhplus|14 years ago|reply
http://www.cms.kids.us http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/11/56429
[+] [-] waitwhat|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jarin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] veyron|14 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse.com
[+] [-] lowglow|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kijeda|14 years ago|reply
There will however be a sea change in the future, ICANN is intending the open up applications for new gTLDs in 2012 that could see hundreds more TLDs added. So if adding the dozen or so new gTLDs in the last 10 years has seemed countless, it will get worse.
[+] [-] Adaptive|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sephr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ashconnor|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joezydeco|14 years ago|reply
Martha Stewart can pay under Sunrise B to stop marthastewart.xxx, but can she stop marthastewart.xxx.xxx?
[+] [-] sdkmvx|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] palish|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0x12|14 years ago|reply
Elementary programming course on 'thesecretcode.xxx'. Legions of porn seeking people converted to programmers, if slashdot is any indication that should be a perfect match.
[+] [-] TomGullen|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmtame|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dpcan|14 years ago|reply
When's the last time someone told you to go to a porn site in plain English, out loud, anywhere?
[+] [-] dskhatri|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cryptoz|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wgx|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guelo|14 years ago|reply
That is all.
[+] [-] WestCoastJustin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] burgerbrain|14 years ago|reply
Water down the domain so it no longer means much, so filtering by it becomes destructive.
[+] [-] missing_cipher|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waitwhat|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] T_S_|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] p4bl0|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] celalo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sampsonjs|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]