Comments
Comment posted Sep 19, 2004 8:46 pm PDT — by Jothan Frakes I appreciate the comments and [ahem] corrections to this article, and I have a great deal of respect for everyone in the domain name industry, even where we may need to agree to disagree on some points.
Certainly, from a registry perspective, the creation of .EU is a completely unprecedented process of creating a ccTLD from a 'reserved code element' that is "Exceptionally Reserved" on the ISO-3166-1 list. Not since the Internet society formed ICANN in 1998, has such an event occurred.
The only ccTLD that has been created since the Internet society formed ICANN is .PS, which was officially added to the ISO-3166-1 list prior to doing so.
There are quite a few edge cases of with regard to the delegation a ccTLD in contrast to the ISO-3166-1 table, (which may be reviewed at [http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code-lists/iso_3166-1_decoding_table.html] – pay attention to the 'yellow ones'):
Two character codes "Exceptionally Reserved" on ISO-3166-1:
Assigned as ccTLD: AC, GG, IM, JE, UK [.UK was delegated in lieu of .GB]
Unassigned as ccTLD: CP, DG, EA, EU, FX, IC, TA
There are some "Exceptionally Reserved" codes that found their way into the root in times that pre-date the formation of ICANN from the Internet society back in 1998.
[http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/04background-on-iso-3166/iso3166-1-and-ccTLDs.html]
.UK, (which was opted for use over .GB [assigned but unused]) (both 24-July-1985)
.AC, (19-December-1997),
.IM, (11-September-1996),
.JE, (08-August-1996),
.GG, (07-August-1996)
In general, the .EU situation is one where exceptional circumstances are being used to add a ccTLD that is not in the officially assigned, but rather is reserved within the ISO-3166-1 table. .EU is one of seven of such exceptionally reserved codes.
[COMMENT: Special consideration that .EU has lobbied for most likely applies only to .EU. I would not advise someone hoping to obtain a TLD to run out and apply to IANA for .EA or .TA or another unassigned "Exceptionally Reserved" code element thinking that the delegation of .EU creates a precedent – you will waste both your and IANA/ICANN's valuable time.]
The addition of .EU to the root as a ccTLD has been an interesting process. .EU will no doubt be immensely popular. The popularity of the TLD is certainly not in question.
In fact, many 'at-large' users of the Internet were provided opportunities to pay money for pre-registration rights to their .EU domain name. Though this was addressed by ICANN, and most of the registrars subsequently removed their offerings, the hype surrounding the whole process is the intended focus of my article.
This initial article is a reprint of an article that I had written for a monthly newsletter at a large company that does Digital Brand Management, and as such the article had more of a registrant or intellectual property audience focus.
One could certainly see that the marketplace is there for .EU domains. The intended focus of the article was that confusion has resulted from misrepresented or missed timeline dates combined with the behavior of those that would cash in on pre-registration land rush.
Clearly, there are many people who are working hard against a variety of challenges to get .EU to see the light of day. They are making headway, and we should acknowledge their progress to date.
I definitely do.
Comment posted Aug 16, 2005 5:41 pm PDT — by Jothan Frakes I am shocked by the oversimplification and posturing made by those opposing the new extension.
As a parent, I want the ability to block an entire TLD, which the introduction of this extension would allow.
The reaction to freeze the process seems to be somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction, and contrary to the progress seen in moving forward such other extensions as .EU, .mobi, and .travel.
I was skeptical of the new extension myself initially, but I listened as Stuart Lawley of ICM Registry gave a presentation on the .xxx TLD at the Domain Roundtable Conference this past May. He answered very pointed questions and discussed the TLD structure, and outlined the role and structure of the International Foundation for Online Responsibility (IFFOR.ORG) in the oversight and policy of the TLD.
The IFFOR essentially governs the TLD, and has a staunch child protection focus, and their mandate seems to promote responsible business practices within the TLD.
Granted, .xxx is controversial; however, were detractors to actually review the plans, and to consult those with knowledge about the way the internet works, they might realise that the opposition shoot themselves in the foot.
Adult or objectionable material in other TLD extensions has happened, and will continue to happen with or without a .xxx top level domain.
The creation of a .xxx TLD would give parents the ability to block an entire TLD from being accessed by a computer with trivial effort—something that gives unprecedented parental advantage.
The approach taken by ICM Registry to ensure responsible conduct and the IFFOR to help self govern this extension lends itself towards that objective.
The argument that detractors are making seems to indicate that adding a .xxx extension is going to introduce porn to the internet, or make it easier for the adult industry to invade homes.
This is not the creation of a red-light district on the internet – pornographic material is likely one of the largest industries on the internet today, with websites ending in almost every extension—.com, .net, .org, etc.
This new extension is the voluntary migration of adult content producers to a sponsored TLD that fosters self regulation, and allows me to shut the whole thing off for computers I operate – making parental guidance simpler.
I wonder if detractors have thought this through enough to realize that they perpetuate the unmanageable tangle that exists to solutions by pushing the status quo? What could be hurt by trying something designed to make ways to improve the current situation?
Comment posted Sep 13, 2005 5:56 pm PDT — by Jothan Frakes This is well written, and you make some reasonable points.
This particular TLD has charged people's views on adult content, and we see a lot of heated discussion over it.
I have an issue with using the NCMEC numbers in an argument against moving forward with the .XXX TLD. It ignores common sense.
The NCMEC figures, these are staggering. Yet quoting these figures as an opposition to the .XXX TLD is completely irrelevant, as these figures got to where they are completely separately from the submission of this TLD.
The argument that having a .XXX TLD would increase the velocity or quantities of child pornography is purely rediculous. The expectation that the introduction of the .XXX TLD would increase the amount of adult content on the internet is not taking the facts into consideration.
The .XXX TLD has a high cost of entry, and clear boundaries and policies on what is and is not acceptable, and consequences for non-compliance.
If a registrant spends the money to obtain a .XXX domain name, they are spending more than they would on many other less expensive TLD options that exist for them to use for their content.
The registrant of the .XXX domain is bound by acceptable use policies that cover content, and are developed by IFFOR – an emerging entity that is separate from the registry itself. The registrant must comply with those policies or they lose their domain name.
Pragmatically, why would someone jeopardize their investment?
Those that would elect into registering under the .XXX TLD would most likely be those who would not intend to jeopardize their registration through violation of terms. That fact alone would lend itself to a strong argument that sites operating under the .XXX TLD are not going to be the type of site that would increase the NCMEC figures.
In fact, these NCMEC figures only illustrate the current state of the internet in the absence of any TLD policy regulation, or industry self-regulation, beyond what national law and law enforcement provide.
The state that the internet is in today, with regard to the availability adult content or pornography, is sub utopian by many parental standards. This is undisputed. It is what it is, and policing actual content extends beyond the scope or mandate of ICANN.
What folks really need to consider in approving or rejecting the .XXX TLD is this:
Have you honestly read the application and policies from a pragmatic perspective, or have your personal views affected your ability to see the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal at face value?
Given what the current state of affairs is, what actually gets improved should .XXX not move forward?
I carefully reviewed the public information on the .XXX application, and I sincerely believe that the TLD will not exacerbate an existing problem. Instead, it is a step towards industry self-regulation, and there are documented expectations and parameters that define the scope and consequences.
Boundaries and consequences that apparently are not in place in the rest of the internet, else we would not see these alarming NCMEC numbers.
It appears to me, once I set aside an initial resistance to a .XXX TLD, that it is actually going to be a baby step towards improving the current state of the internet.
Comment posted Jun 21, 2006 9:08 pm PDT — by Jothan Frakes Comment
Topic Interests
DNS ,
Domain Names ,
Top-Level Domains ,
Security ,
Domain Registries ,
Regional Registries ,
Mobile ,
Internet Governance ,
Multilinguism ,
Whois ,
Policy & Regulation ,
Spam ,
IPv6 ,
IP Addressing ,
Internet Protocol ,
Privacy ,
Cybersquatting ,
Censorship ,
Wireless ,
DNSSEC ,
VoIP ,
P2P ,
IPTV ,
Enum ,
Net Neutrality ,
Law ,
Web
Recent Blogs
Oct 31, 2006
Comments: 8 Views: 11,024
Oct 28, 2006
Comments: 0 Views: 4,444
May 30, 2006
Comments: 5 Views: 8,055
Oct 28, 2005
Comments: 4 Views: 8,707
Sep 16, 2005
Comments: 7 Views: 10,242
Popular Posts
Oct 31, 2006
Comments: 8 Views: 11,024
Jan 19, 2005
Comments: 4 Views: 10,438
Sep 10, 2004
Comments: 6 Views: 10,272
Sep 16, 2005
Comments: 7 Views: 10,242
Jul 13, 2005
Comments: 0 Views: 8,833
