CircleID

So taking property from someone is ok? What about the people who have invested time and effort and resources into a brand able domain name? You want to take (steal) that away from them? What is considered objectionable? Tobacco related websites? Gun related websites? Alcohol related websites? Gambling related websites? Do you want to take away their rights too? Make them exist on separate tld's? This needs to stop now. Every day more of our rights are taken from us. What about people who have a domain such as SEX.com which is worth millions of dollars? Will you allow that owner to register the domain SEX.xxx before anyone else, so he can retain his value? Oh wait a minute, what about the person who owns SEX.net, SEX.us, SEX.org, SEX.tv etc........

I've tried to think honestly about how I would feel if there were suddenly a .consult domain that all consultants were encouraged to relocate to. And frankly, I just don't think it would be a big deal. I mean there's no way I'd want to give up any domain I already owned, but that's not required.

Assume that parental controls would allow an easy way to block out all .xxx domains. Further assume you had the ReallyNastyStuffForAdults.com domain. Now, take the 15 seconds required to set up the .com domain to redirect to the .xxx domain, and you've just made a de facto good faith effort to assist in keeping adult content restricted to adults. In this way the redirect (which takes about 2 seconds to occur) would immediately provide your content to those expecting it, but reject those with .xxx filters.

While I don't support a mandated use of such a TLD, it sure seems like something the adult industry would want to do without a mandate.
From a practical standpoint, it seems like that industry would welcome the protection that it offers. Since the nature of the TLD's content would be public knowledge, the burden of safeguarding children would shift back where it belongs - with the parent, school, or childcare worker.

As far as that goes, I don't see a problem with the examples from the previous post. There's no reason not to have .cig .gun .beer or any other useful TLD, and redirect existing .com domains to them. After all, let's not forget that ALL domains are simply redirectors anyway - redirecting a (sometimes) memorable word address to less user-friendly IP address.

So I suppose yahoo.com will have to migrate over to .xxx as well. We all know they allow users to have adult related profiles. We all know they have adult chat rooms. We all know they allow for adult cybering. So therefore we need yahoo to get its arse over to .xxx as well. This also applies to any other website that may have some adult related content. 

So I suppose yahoo.com will have to migrate over to .xxx as well. We all know they allow users to have adult related profiles. We all know they have adult chat rooms. We all know they allow for adult cybering. So therefore we need yahoo to get its arse over to .xxx as well. This also applies to any other website that may have some adult related content or features. 

Below is are copies of posts I made on Domain Name Policy List back in 2000:

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:52:50 -0400
Sender: Owner-Domain-Policy <owner-domain-policy@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
From: Ron Bennett <bennett@WYOMISSING.COM>
Subject: [ICANN COMMENT] .SEX, .XXX, .KIDS TLDs Restrict Freedom of Speech
To:

[Copy of my official comment I posted on the ICANN Public Comment Forum regarding New TLD Applications.
http://www.icann.org/mbx/tldapps/

(The following is similar to a comment I posted here last week)

--------

First the problems with the proposed .SEX & .XXX TLDs:

The proposed TLDs .SEX and .XXX seem well intentioned as a way of partitioning off adult oriented materials from minors, etc.

But how does one exactly define adult oriented materials? -especially considering the internet is an international medium. What is considered adult oriented here in the United States isn't elsewhere and vice-versa.

And what happens when ICANN or whoever decides to go the next step and restricts adult oriented materials to *only* certain TLDs - for example .SEX and .XXX only.

And how would such content restrictions be enforced?

In the end TLDs such as .SEX and .XXX will probably result in ICANN dictating content too.

In regards to problems with the proposed .KIDS TLD:

Many of the same points above apply to .KIDS too…

How does one exactly define kid oriented materials? -especially considering the internet is an international medium. What is considered adult oriented here in the United States isn't elsewhere and vice-versa. For example, nudity in many parts of the world such as parts of Europe and Japan is not considered harmful to children. On the other hand, violence aimed at children is widely tolerated in the United States, but not content containing nudity.

And how would such content restrictions be enforced?

And as I said above, in the end TLDs such as .KIDS will probably result in ICANN dictating content too.

TLDs should be used to better categorize content, but not to restrict it. While .SEX, .XXX, and .KIDS TLDs are well intentioned, all three of these TLDs are all primarily intended to *restrict* content as opposed to merely categorizing it. It's very important to keep this distinction in mind when considering new .TLDs.

Bottom line is that TLDs should be for categorizing content, not restricting content which is what the proposed .SEX, .XXX, and .KIDS TLDs would do and thus they should *not* be added.

Ron Bennett

--------

Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:38:09 -0400
Sender: Owner-Domain-Policy <owner-domain-policy@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
From: Ron Bennett <bennett@WYOMISSING.COM>
Subject: Re: [ICANN COMMENT] .SEX, .XXX, .KIDS TLDs Restrict Freedom of Speech
To:
In-Reply-To: <NDBBJLLPOMBEMOIDNIJHIENKDAAA.jelliott@tucows.com>

Josh-

Please read my other posts on this subject for more details, but here's a sampling of the many problems with the .KIDS TLD in response to your message…

1. Could eventually become *mandatory* for companies wishing to reach minors to having to use the .KIDS TLD

2. Libraries, schools, and other public facilities could be *forced* to block out entire TLDs...and to the extreme there could end up being instances where only persons, including adults, would have access to the .KIDS TLD only.

** In fact I just read an article in the USA Today regarding Congress working on passing a bill that would require *mandatory* filtering as a condition of receiving Federal funds.

Ron Bennett

> At 08:54 AM 10/16/00 -0700, Josh Elliott wrote:
> No one is forcing you to register a .KIDS domain.  If you don't like your
> content monitored, then don't register there.
>
> Josh

Another post of mine in regards to the announcement that .kids and .xxx not being selected by ICANN for the first round of new TLDs back then:

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:42:10 -0500
Sender: Owner-Domain-Policy <owner-domain-policy@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
From: Ron Bennett <bennett@WYOMISSING.COM>
Subject: Re: Rejected TLDs — .kids and .xxx
To:

I'm glad .sex and .kids were rejected. While the idea of such TLDs sound good...they're not so good when one examines such proposals more in-depth....for example a .kids domain registry would be the position to define what is suitable for children on a global basis.

Also such TLDs would be used as tools for censorship by governments; governments would require schools, libraries, etc to only permit .kids sites to be accessed.

In regards to child porn...that's a red herring since most child porn makers/traders don't provide such materials to a broad audience, but rather they privately trade such materials among themselves. Thus the addition of TLDs such as .kids, .xxx, etc will have no effect whatsoever on privately traded materials - be it child porn, music, etc.

However, .kids, .xxx, etc WILL have the effect of BLOCKING LEGAL materials from law abiding citizens who seek them.

The world would be a much better place if people spent more time worrying about their own business and less time telling others what they can and can't view, etc. My .02

Ron Bennett

> At 05:56 AM 1/17/01 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> All
>
> It's a pity that Jason Hendeles of ICM Registry, Inc. did not get the
> combination of .kids and .xxx that he applied for.  See "TLD Applications
> Lodged" as follows:
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-applications-lodged-02oct00.htm
>
> That might have gone towards helping the following activists and
> investigators:
>
> Child Pornography on the Internet and the Sexual Exploitation of Children
> Statement for the record of Louis J. Freeh, Director, Federal Bureau of
> Investigation.
> URL: http://www.fbi.gov/pressrm/congress/congress98/sac310.htm
>
> National Law Center
> Conservative law group offering legal assistance, training, and education
> regarding obscenity and child pornography laws.
> URL: http://www.nationallawcenter.org
>
> International Child Center (ICC)
> ICC is the Internet's world-central bank of child protection information,
> resources and services.
> URL: http://www.icc-911.com
>
> United States Section of Regulation of Child Pornography on the Internet
> URL: http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/uscases.htm
> Cases and Materials related to Child Pornography on the Internet Cite as:
> Yaman
> Akdeniz, Regulation of Child Pornography on the Internet: Cases and Materials,
> at…
>
> Child Pornography - What is it & Where is it?
> URL: http://m-net.arbornet.org/~asp/
> ASP - Looking for kiddie porn on the web? In that case, we're looking for you.
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss

Final one...to read more download Domain Name Policy archives Dec-14-1999 to May-24-2001 (when it closed)
http://www.wyomissing.com/bennett/domainpolicyarchives.zip
-or-
http://www.valuenames.com/bennett/domainpolicyarchives.zip

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:14:33 -0500
Sender: Owner-Domain-Policy <owner-domain-policy@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
From: Ron Bennett <bennett@WYOMISSING.COM>
Subject: Re: Would .XXX work? (was: Re: Rejected TLDs —.kids and .xxx)
To:

At 06:25 PM 1/16/01 -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 06:29:54PM -0500, Ron Bennett wrote:
>>I disagree, and I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion.
>>
>> From experience.
>
> Expand, please.

I've read of, and even myself experienced, situations in which many internet filtering programs will block sites that contain words such as "sex", "nude", etc. Some even filter on the URL which means if someone is unfortunate enough to own a domain such as "sexton.com" they may be blocked...another example is domains that contain "shit" in them...many Japanese words/phases contain such a combination and thus some are blocked by filters. Even NSI had to totally remove its filtering for domain registrations that contain "shit" in them primarily for this reason.

>> >Putting all the adult stuff in one place would seem to make it easier
>> >to identify, and therefore cause attempts at censoring it to become
>> >easier to avoid, since they're all aimed at the same target.
>>
>> Putting everything all in one place makes it not only easier
>> to identify, but also easier to censor...RIGHT!!?  Understand?
>
> What part of [what I wrote above] wasn't clear to you?

You're stating the opposite...you're claiming that by putting it all in one place it's more difficult to censor...that's nonsense!!! Putting everything all in one place makes it EASIER to censor, not harder. Also, .xxx and .kids are primarily intended to restrict information and not just merely to categorize it.

>> >It would also deprive the "we must outlaw it so the kids won't
>> >*accidentally* trip over it crowd of their primary argument, which
>> >would seem to be a good thing, to me.
>>
>> Nonsense!!  Many of the loudest proponents of filters, bans, etc
>> won't be satisfied until any and all controversial materials are
>> wiped clean from the face of the Earth! Save the children is a red
>> herring
>
> Um, I just *said* that?

No you didn't. But I'm glad you agree with me now :-)

>> and anyone familiar with history is well aware of how
>> arguments such as "save the children", "it's for your protection",
>> "the government knows best", etc have been used throughout
>> history to control and suppress people. Censorship is a slippery
>> slope and often happens slow and insidiously. A better approach
>> is education and tolerance. Censorship TLDs aren't the answer.

> Defining this thing you don't like with the > pejorative term "Censorship TLD" isn't the
answer *either*.  Your argumentative approach > doesn't do you, or your side of the argument, any credit.

Really?? .xxx and .kids were denied. My approach works fine :-;

> If you have *examples* where this sort of problem has cropped up, please share them.
> If your concerns are merely concerns, well,
that's ok; they happen to be *valid*
> concerns.  But they're merely concerns, until they actually *happen*.  My information > is that people commercial involved in the
business think that .xxx is a good idea. If
> you have counter-evidence, or if you *are* such a person, please do let us know.

Of course people who are commercially involved in the business think .xxx, etc are a great idea...more TLDs equals more domain registrationswhich equals more money. That doesn't mean such TLDs are a good thing. Perhaps you yourself have a stake in the introduction of .xxx, .kids, etc...from your last paragraph it sounds like you do...do you??

Ron Bennett

I read Donald's RFC and I think it makes a lot of valid points. On the other hand, I Think Talented Fools' post also makes a good point.

onson's Yahoo example doesn't quite hold water, in that a majority of sites like Yahoo which have areas with mixed "levels" of content (say, 'generally safe for the public' vs. 'potentially or obviously adult in nature') already have disclaimers and warnings posted voluntarily before allowing you in.

It would be technically feasible to cordon off areas of the sites which allow for or provide adult content to be provided via a .sex / .xxx domain instead of the main .com domain.

I think what many people (including Donald, who obviously has spent more time considering this than I have) is that a majority of adult content providers would *gladly* move their content to a .xxx domain and have a .com portal with generally "safe" content to it. The adult industry is always looking for ways to make themselves more legally defensible (particlarly in the US).

So the huge problem of "who decides what is prurient or unsuitable for general consumption" is one that has already been solved to some extent by existing decency laws in countries around the world. Every nation with the Internet has some form of legislation about what is and is not appropriate for the general populous to see without being warned first. It is up to the content peddlers to disclose the nature of their wares and, in some locales, "wrap them in brown paper" if it's not legal for everyone to see it.

I do not believe that it would be technically burdensome to have a master list of policies (maintained by an international consortia) that provides a simple set of content bracketing rules for the various locales and domains. Each web user agent (browser) would periodically check for a copy of this "rules file" and apply it to all names based on their locale.

If you are 16 years old and live in the USA, then you will be warned (or blocked) when requesting a site (or a section of a site) that has a .xxx.foo or .sex.foo extention, even though in the great country of Foo, it would be legal for a 16 year old to see said content.

These warnings/blocks could be bypassed altogether by policies set on the user-account level or on the local machine (by the parents, who should hold the digital keys to the computer until their children are of an age that they deem appropriate).

So an international community would be responsible for deciding what constitutes an "Adult" rating is in the USA vs. an adult rating in other counries and publishing a basic mapping between .xxx.nl and .xxx.us

Of course, all this becomes somewhat circumventable if you address sites directly by IP… but I digress.

LOL ;-)

That 4th paragraph was supposed to start:

I think what many people **overlook**

...but I myself overlooked adding that word. ;)