Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

ICANN Meeting Puts Off XXX Domain Again 157

Posted by Zonk
from the porn-still-easy-to-find dept.
An anonymous reader wrote to mention an International Herald story about a recent ICANN meeting on the proposed .XXX domain. Australia, the U.S., and the EU have moved to block the idea, with most commentators surmising this will prevent the concept from ever moving forward. From the article: "Some people maintain that a triple-x domain name, and the ability to enforce rules to qualify for it, would rein in an out-of-control Internet phenomenon. In registering, a company could have to abide by ratings agency standards, require proof of age for entrants, maybe even pay for Internet filtering research. The company pushing the idea, ICM Registry, also argues that dot-xxx would be good for customers of pornography sites, assuring them of certain business benchmarks, like being free of adware or computer viruses."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ICANN Meeting Puts Off XXX Domain Again

Comments Filter:
  • by spacemanspiff18 (883238) on Thursday March 30, 2006 @05:41PM (#15029875)
    How are they going to guarantee that? And if that's their plan, why don't they implement it for .com as well?
    • How are they going to guarantee that?

      Theyre not, it's just a nicer package if they try to sell that. When everybody's finally approved of the .xxx domain a study will show that it won't be technically/economically feasible for the next five years.

      [/crystall_ball]
    • Maybe, just maybe (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jfengel (409917) on Thursday March 30, 2006 @06:07PM (#15030066) Homepage Journal
      Because the .com TLD is the repository of all crud. It's open to everybody.

      If the TLD isn't .com, the registrars should guarantee that it means something. For example, the .edu domain is restricted, and the registrar (a compnay caled Educase) is responsible for guaranteeing that it doesn't get full of spammers and scammers. Some country code domains are usefully geographically limited. By contrast, the .biz domain is stupid, because there's nothing in it that wouldn't be better off in .com unless you're trying to fool somebody with your scuzzy "CapitalOne.biz" domain.

      People trust .edu domains because Educase backs them with their reputation. If the rep fails, the .edu domain owners will be pissed off, because they're paying for exclusivity.

      So maybe, just maybe, these guys will be vigilant about kicking out the registrations of people with .xxx domains who host malware. The guys keeping them honest will be the .xxx domain owners themselves, who are selling a legal but sleazy project where some degree of trust is needed. (In the real world would you trust a porn purveyor with your credit card?)

      That "guaranteed free of malware" would involve a lot of vigilance on their part, and in return the .xxx domain owners would get people less wary of visiting their sites. They'd pay through the nose for that. They can't guarantee it completely, but if they investigate reports seriously and shut down domains spewing malware they might just get some trust. I'd be willing to give them a shot. It's a valid reason to establish a new domain, unlike most of the other new TLDs, which are just pork for domain registrars.
      • (In the real world would you trust a porn purveyor with your credit card?)

        Considering they were the driving force behind secure online CC transactions and secure account information practices, sure.
      • In the real world would you trust a porn purveyor with your credit card?

        Now, I'm not some kind of porn fiend, but I dislike your implication that people who sell porn are more likely to do something unethical to your credit card. I don't see any reason to be prejudiced against "porn purveyors". Because you might personally find their business in bad taste does not make the people in the business immoral or unethical.

        Besides, there are plenty of brick-and-mortar stores that sell porn. That's where th
        • Now, I'm not some kind of porn fiend, but I dislike your implication that people who sell porn are more likely to do something unethical to your credit card.

          Well I am one, and due to the consolidation of payment processors, Porn is safer than technogadgets - you generally deal with 2 or 3 companies total for whichever sites you go to, and they have pretty decent online tools, so it's not like you'll get burned, whereas every joe blow computer shop does their own payments and the goods are easier to screw

      • (In the real world would you trust a porn purveyor with your credit card?)

        Given that I'm not liable for the cost of fraudulent transactions made against my card, and further given that I have no reason to believe that any given "porn purveyor" is any less trustworthy than any other business, yes of course I would.
    • ...is not if .xxx is a good thing to do, the real story is that ICANN, once it's approved the tld to be included in the root zone (like it did LAST YEAR) cannot actually get the domain past the US government.

      In other words we have poeple in "charge" of the root zone that cannot actually do the job. The EU and Australia are old cronies of ICANN, part of the "deal with the devil" made upon ICANN's creation. You'll notice a year ago when ICANN approved and submitted the TLD for inclusion to its overseer the EU
  • by abigsmurf (919188) on Thursday March 30, 2006 @05:43PM (#15029888)
    porn sites garenteed to be safe and malware free? I'm sure most male (and probably most female too) would love the prospect of the ability to get porn *legally* without the risk of infecting their PC. Vetting the domains could stop underage people both visiting and appearing in .xxx sites too. Of course no politition wants to actively promote porn so they'll stamp on it to promote 'christian values'
    • It won't actively promote porn, it will provide an easily-filterable place to keep it all.
      • Right, but in the minds of politicians and their Christian constituents, tolerating == promoting.
      • Will the .xxx domain also be numerically segregated? Or will people be able to access such sites by using a numerical address such as 69.69.69.69? In the latter case, how does one filter?
        • Your comment led me to try the IP 69.69.69.69 just to see what's there. Alas, there doesn't seem to be a server there.
        • Will the .xxx domain also be numerically segregated? Or will people be able to access such sites by using a numerical address such as 69.69.69.69? In the latter case, how does one filter?

          Well, if they're already going to force them at gunpoint into the .xxx ghetto, it's no great leap to also force them to configure the default Apache virtual server (where the 69.69.69.69 points) to serve a non-porn error page or even no page at all, with "www.fuxalot.xxx" served from a domain name based virtual server on

        • Where are you filtering? Let's say for a second it's the browser (with net nanny or something similar). Your 10 year, starting to become curious, types in www.cheapsluts.xxx. That's easy enough to filter... ends in xxx, just block it. No look up needed.

          OK, the kid feels clever. He types in 69.69.69.69 in the address bar. Well, hmmm, the browser thinks. That there is an ip address. Let me just do a reverse lookup on that... (dig -x for broswsers kicks
          in), the browser gets back the domain matching 69...69 and
    • If I see your name on the Slashdot stories that put the XXX domain in an unfavorable light (where posters were saying that it's right-wing Christian nonsense to try to limit otherwise legal Internet activity, and how the US government was promoting censorship) I'm going not going to be able to concentrate on the outrageously distasteful pornography I'm looking at, I'll be laughing so hard.
    • OK, I'll tell you the downside then.

      porn sites garenteed to be safe and malware free? I'm sure most male (and probably most female too) would love the prospect of the ability to get porn *legally* without the risk of infecting their PC.

      Not really feasible. They can't enforce that for .coms now can they? Besides, even if it is free of adware/malware, it may still not be legal, who knows if they actually have the distribution rights to whatever random piece of porn they are distributing.

      Vetting the domains
    • I'm sure most male (and probably most female too) would love the prospect of the ability to get porn *legally* without the risk of infecting their PC.

      I surf to Sublime Directory's Big Board [sublimedirectory.com], and using Firefox, have no problems... As much "free" porn as your plate can hold...

  • the real reason.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tepshen (851674) on Thursday March 30, 2006 @05:44PM (#15029902)
    That they keep putting this off is because of the embarassment it would cause when .xxx sites outnumber all .com .net .biz and .org sites put together.
    • That they keep putting this off is because of the embarassment it would cause when .xxx sites outnumber all .com .net .biz and .org sites put together.

      That might not be true because unless they make it madatory that all adult websites shift to xxx domain, none would shift. They have well established presence in the com world, and the capturing of xxx would be just another domain buying where xxx page would eventually redirect to the .com site.

      If they did make it a rule to send adult business to .xxx, it

    • I think the real reason is that the religious right still have way more than their fair share of influence.

      They think pornography is evil and needs to be outlawed entirely. They think allowing an xxx top level domain would be condoning pornography and it would thus impede their plans for a total ban.

  • by soloes (415223)
    Why are these countries opposed to something that would allow contgrol over what most of the conservatives in those countries claim to hate?
    I would like to find a link to the responses by the countries blocking it if anybody has those in more detail.
    • Because the thought of even having an .XXX domain somehow causes them to think they're enabling it, so they try to sweep it under the rug. The initial shock of "XXX" freaks them out too much for them to cause them to think rationally about it.

      Unfortunately, this is one of those things that requires maturity, something porn-hating people don't have.

      • Unfortunately, this is one of those things that requires maturity, something porn-hating people don't have.



        s/hating/fearing/;
        I've found plenty of people who are anti-porn that are rational about it. It's the one's who are afraid of it that are not rational in their arguments.
        -nB
    • Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AuMatar (183847) on Thursday March 30, 2006 @06:02PM (#15030030)
      I'm personally glad its being blocked. Once its created, its a short step from being able to register a .xxx to being forced to use .xxx for "obscene speech". Once you have that, you have an issue with free speech rights being trampled as the government tries to regulate what it obscene or not.
      • to being forced to use .xxx for "obscene speech"

        Oh puh-leeze. You sound just like the left-wing extremists in my country, who are scared at anything that MIGHT POSSIBLY ONE DAY be used in conjunction with the REMOTE POSSIBILITY of an ADDITIONAL LAW to MAYBE (if we roll 3d20) sell the whole country (I'm talking about allowing private investment in energy generation). Those people and their doomsaying are what keeps my country (Mexico) in the stone age.
        • Re:why? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by AuMatar (183847)
          Seeing as we have right wing religious zealots controlling Congress and the White House, I don't think its a stretch at all. Look at the laws that have already been struck down by the Supremes this past decade, such CIPA. Look at the other restrictions to freedom passed by Bush. Its not a remote possibility, its a damn near certainty that it *would* be passed, in some form (how onerous a form would get passed would be the question- the republicans might push a weak test version out first to test the wat
      • Once you have that, you have an issue with free speech rights being trampled as the government tries to regulate what it obscene or not.

        Clearly, Obscenity is a statue of a naked women giving birth [nme.com].
      • Personally I don't think that a .xxx domain will be especially useful or beneficial, unless its part of a radical move such as opening up all possible TLD's. I also think it could quite possibly lead to undesirable things such as governments trying to implement legislation around its existance.

        That said, what bothers me about this has nothing to do with the fact that it's being blocked -- it's the way that it's being blocked. There's a clear process available to be followed for deciding this, but several

    • Because moving all sites of that type to a specific domain would validate it as an internet entity. Most of these places hate it so much they'd rather not even recognize that it exists, let alone say it's as important as a...

      commerce site
      network site
      organization site
      government site
      educational site
      or
      bizness site

      that would be giving the porn industry TOO MUCH CREDIT.
      • Those are already too much. People should not have to buy their own domain name again and again (com, net, org, biz, info...). Sure, it's too late to delete some of them but if we had to redo it all over again, I'd suggest just one international domain name : .int (which would stand for Internet or International) and all country codes.

        Each country would be responsible having their own 2 letter code so if the US wants .gov.us, .edu.us, or whatever, they police it themselves.

    • Re:why? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Aspirator (862748)
      The whole issue has been considered, filed, reconsidered, trashed,
      untrashed, contemplated and cogitated for some while.

      There is a relevant RFC with very cogent arguments as to why it is a bad idea.

      http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=3675 [rfc-archive.org]

      • thanks for the info. that makes it clear as I guess it can be.
        I dont know where i stand on the issue myself, but sure thin the conservatives would be for it.
    • Re:why? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Because it doesn't really address anybody's concerns. Let's say .xxx sites have to be actual bona-fide porn sites to qualify. Great. That absolutely does not stop porn sites from continuing to use .com, .org, or whatever, now, does it? And since porn sites can elect to use .xxx or .com as they see fit, you can't protect the children and innocent library patrons by simply blocking .xxx domains, can you? Unless, of course, you decide to mandate the use of the .xxx top level for porn. But now you have to
    • Why are these countries opposed to something that would allow contgrol over what most of the conservatives in those countries claim to hate?
      They don't want to control pr0n, they want to eliminate it, no matter how impossible this sounds. Allowing an .xxx domain is somehow accepting presence of pr0n in the net.
  • It seems like all these extra rules and details are just going to get in the way of the point of having a .xxx TLD, namely that "pron goes here".

  • by Toby The Economist (811138) on Thursday March 30, 2006 @05:45PM (#15029908)
    "The company pushing the idea, ICM Registry, also argues that dot-xxx would be good for customers of pornography sites, assuring them of certain business benchmarks, like being free of adware or computer viruses."

    The fact is, laws passed for the "common good" invariably end up harming those they were notionally intended to help and in fact end up greatly benefiting a very small group of people.

    In this case, the average punter will see his prices rise, to pay for all the regulation the porn sites would bear, the number and variety of porn sites would decrease because of their extra costs and ICM Registry would do very well out of it *indeed*.

    • The fact is, laws passed for the "common good" invariably end up harming those they were notionally intended

      Well indeed...

      One obvious consequence of making .xxx well-regulated is that there will need to be a place for people to have non-well-regulated stuff. People who want sex and don't want to pay for it will want adware, so if you regulate against it, then you need a .ADS+XXX tld to say "yes, I want xxx but I'll tolerate ads to get them".

      What problem is being solved by regulating this new domain

  • Tagging (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I have tagged this story with the tag "boobies" and I hope you do too.
  • Pithy (Score:1, Troll)

    Cowards!
  • Oh good grief... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by inphinity (681284)
    "...maybe even pay for Internet filtering research."

    Since when does porn have to be regulated like the tobacco industry? It's not like these sites are ruining lives by giving people cancer.

    And what's to stop me from making amazingsexvideos.COM and not paying fo the fees? I doubt that not having a .xxx TLD will decrease the amount of traffic I see...

    • Porn IS regulated just as much as the tobacco industry right now. You have to be a certain age to be in porn films or photos, you have to be a certain age to go into adult bookstores, you can't view porn in a public place where other people can see what you're looking at, etc.

      The issue isn't that pornography will ruin the lives of those people that look at it; it's that the Internet allows minors to access porn very easily.

      I think this is actually a good idea, but determining rules for what should belong i
    • ...It's not like these sites are ruining lives by giving people cancer.
      No, but my Mom keeps telling me that I'll go blind.
    • what's to stop me from making amazingsexvideos.COM

      This is. [whois.sc] Apart from that, nothing. More importantly, there's nothing stopping you from making amazingkiddiesexvideos.com. It's an opt-in business standards label, but they're trying to market it as a measure against child porn, for the sake of the save-the-puppies angle in the news.

      This has nothing to do with morality or filtering technology or anything. "Some people" means ICM Registry, who aside from pushing the idea itself, plan to be the ones in charg

    • It's not like these sites are ruining lives by giving people cancer.

      Okay, so it's not ruining lives by giving people cancer, but it does ruin some marraiges, relationships, etc... Quite frankly, it's also addictive. Try going without porn for a month and you'll know what I mean. I've heard it once called the crack/cocain for the soul.

      So what's the big deal? I don't know, but sex seems to keep a marriage together. Porn takes away from that. Instead of wanting your spouce, one has an escape. Variety is
      • Some people would find that porn actually makes them want to have sex with thier SO more.

        All generalizations are false.
        • I'm fail to see your point. Reread my post. I use the qualifier "some". That means, at least one. But tell me, how many marriages that involve pornography lasts until one of 'em dies of old age? Just tell your wife that you're going to go look at crazy teen sex so that you would be able to love her more and then post your response.
  • Quite honestly, I am tired of waiting for the .xxx TLD. Without the .xxx TLD where else am I going to obtain my adult entertainment?
  • by Kaellenn (540133)
    Why is it that slashdot is so obsessed with this issue (I'd track down the links, but I see a post on this topic at least every 2 weeks so its not like you have to look far to find them).

    Honestly, NO ONE seems to think this is a good idea. Governments don't want it because they think it'll somehow legitimize it. The XXX industry doesn't want it because they think they'll get pushed off into some dark corner of the web and shunned easily by ISPs. HOW and WHY does this issue keep coming up--none of the tru
    • ICANN wants it so they can make more money. offtopic: "It's been 16 seconds since you hit 'reply'." BULLSHIT I haven't replied since yesterday!
    • Why is it that slashdot is so obsessed with this issue (I'd track down the links, but I see a post on this topic at least every 2 weeks so its not like you have to look far to find them).

      Why is CNN so obsessed with George W. Bush? I'd track down the links, but I see a story on this topic at least every 2 days so it's not like you have to look far to find them.

    • Honestly, NO ONE seems to think this is a good idea.

      No one but us, unfortunately. As a programmer, I've tried to do some improvised web filters, and it's a ROYAL PAIN IN THE BACK. Blocking .xxx sites would be a walk in the park compared with all that content-based filtering madness.
      • As a programmer, I've tried to do some improvised web filters, and it's a ROYAL PAIN IN THE BACK. Blocking .xxx sites would be a walk in the park compared with all that content-based filtering madness.

        What makes you think all porn will be in .xxx? Some people get offended by any naked breasts, so you'll have to possibly block anything about breast cancer or nude beaches, and there's also the matter of erotic literature - is it porn because it describes sex? Porn isn't cut and dried at all.

        • What makes you think all porn will be in .xxx?

          Usually the most perverted and twisted porn sites are the ones making most money. I doubt sites with pictures of naked breasts will make any money compared to the more "modern" ones.
  • by theStig (960440) on Thursday March 30, 2006 @06:02PM (#15030029) Homepage
    Does that mean I can then secure whitehouse.com to peddle my lucrative house painting business?
  • by Quaoar (614366) on Thursday March 30, 2006 @06:05PM (#15030051)
    Is not FORCE people to use .xxx. Just make it a choice. Then whoever is offended by porn can simply block out .xxx, and they can at least block out a good portion of the porn sites out there. The reputable sites (Playboy, etc) will probably switch, so you'll at least clean up the internet a LITTLE bit. I think doing this would be better than nothing.
    • No, they won't switch. They will buy this one too, so they will have both the .com and .xxx domain.
    • by jmorris42 (1458) *
      > Is not FORCE people to use .xxx.

      No these scam artists won't have to force people into .xxx, the lawyers will do that part for them free of charge. That is why .xxx is a terrible idea, once it exists porn outside of it will find itself liable for every kiddie who wanders in 'by accident' and every backwoods community who finds its 'community standards' violated. Then once all of the porn is safely contained in .xxx every company will block it and every ISP will offer to block it. Then a few years lat
    • It's my impression that the very countries who are trying to block the .xxx TLD are precisely the same people as the ones who would prefer it to be compulsory. This is obviously unrealistic, which is why I have very little sympathy for the delayers.

      The ones who think the .xxx TLD is a good idea, however, seem to me to be doing so because there's a market for it -- and that line of reasoning doesn't have very much to do with compulsion.
    • I'm going to quote a previous post [slashdot.org] of mine regarding why .xxx isn't a great idea:

      It's a bad idea.

      If you want to rate pages, there are already standard mechanisms [icra.org] for plugging content metadata into pages. Just for a start, this is a technically-superior system -- there is absolutely no reason to need to purchase an entirely separate TLD just because you have a few pages that contain adult content. The domain name registrars would have loved this -- heck, they'd love people to have to buy a new TLD for *every
  • by spazoidspam (708589) on Thursday March 30, 2006 @06:05PM (#15030058)
    adding a XXX domain wont solve anything. Its like having a town where everyone HAS to carry a gun. It doesnt address the problem of guns being everywhere else in the world.

    a better solution is to create a domain that only has child-friendly material on it. Like creating a town with NO guns allowed.

    Parents could choose to only allow their kids to visit this domain and be assured they wont stumble across pictures that they might not want them to see.


    I don't think I would have my children live in censorland, but at least the parents afraid of letting their children see the real world would have a place to hide it from them.
  • by EzInKy (115248) on Thursday March 30, 2006 @06:09PM (#15030089)
    When asked, my 6-year-old daughter strongly endorsed the idea of a separate space on the Internet for pornography.

    Of course, that's not quite how I put it to her. I said some people wanted a place on the Web where only adults could go.

    "And a place where only kids could go, like pbskids.org?" she asked, leaping to a conclusion I hadn't considered. "That's a great idea."


    My question is why are there so many people who refuse to consider the much more logical course of creating ".safe" domains? It just makes much more sense then trying to force or coerce objectionable material into a single domain and would be much more effective for those who want to censor.
    • Yeah, but what's considered .safe? What's considered .porn? If any "morality" legislation is imposed, many groups who consider themselves morally superior will just need to be in on the process. Will a .safe encyclopedia provide articles on evolution or homosexuality? Will these articles be biased? Would a site like somethingawful.com be labeled .porn?

      • Yeah, but what's considered .safe? What's considered .porn? If any "morality" legislation is imposed, many groups who consider themselves morally superior will just need to be in on the process. Will a .safe encyclopedia provide articles on evolution or homosexuality? Will these articles be biased? Would a site like somethingawful.com be labeled .porn?


        No, all I'm saying is let the people who want censorship censor themselves.
    • My question is why are there so many people who refuse to consider the much more logical course of creating ".safe" domains?

      Because a ".safe" domain is about controlling one's own behavior. A ".xxx" domain is about controlling other people's behavior.

      And some people simply can't live with not being able to control other people's behavior.
      • A ".xxx" domain is about controlling other people's behavior.

        Sorry, I don't get that. Who are you saying is trying to control whom?


        • Sorry, I don't get that. Who are you saying is trying to control whom?


          With a .xxx domain information is blocked from users by others, with a .safe domain users block themselves from information.

      • Because a ".safe" domain is about controlling one's own behavior. A ".xxx" domain is about controlling other people's behavior.

        And some people simply can't live with not being able to control other people's behavior.


        Finally, someone who gets it! Every time this issue comes up I see so many people giving a whole boat load of bullshit reasons why a .xxx domain needs to be created and I when I point out all the reasons why it won't work they throw back the "think of the children" argument. If it was really the
  • adware or computer viruses
    ...or even (heaven forfend!) clothing!
  • It won't stop at .xxx. Then they'll want .sex and .cum. With four letter like .info then they could ask for .fuck, .anal, .oral, .shit, .dvda, and probably .wank. But let's not stop there with just four letters why not .boobies, .masturbation, .cunnilingus, .blow-job, .fisting, .hot-karl, or even .filthy-sanchez. Yes, the possibilities are endless.
  • If only I could delay blowing my load as long as they have managed to delay this conference.

    If only...
  • I am for the regulation of pornography because I don't want kids to be able to access it. There need to be reasonable regulations in place to allow only adults to have straight forward access to it, and the .xxx domain would represent a critical move in the direction of protecting the average kid from easy access to porn. From a libertarian POV, porn must be regulated because children are not part of the equation as they are not "consenting adults." If they want to become adults, then they need to become em
  • Given how reputable I am sure the .xxx sites will be, is it really a good idea to _mandate_ that people submit to them their (or their parents) personal/credit credit card information. How many of them are going to say "free" and then find a loophole to bill you anyway? Who is going to pay the millions for the orginization that is going to sort through all those complaints?

    Further more, it is one thing to have age restrictions for models on these sites, but is it really apropriate to tell people they must b

  • There are lots of valid concerns with trying to "force" all porn to a .xxx TLD. At best it would only partially help, and at worst it could open the door for some serious censorship issues. Why not ask for a voluntary port shift instead? Designate certain ports for certain types of content, such as explicit porn, adult content (i.e., sports illustrated), medical, etc. By doing this, we could in effect start defining nodal spaces for content types that could then be filtered or searched more effectively. Thi
  • by Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) on Thursday March 30, 2006 @07:19PM (#15030588) Homepage
    RFC 3675 [ietf.org]
  • Somehow the NRA feels that the US totally controls the internet and that the US should run ICANN. at least this is according to the latest NRA magazine, I am not sure how ICANN and the internet are leading to the eroding of the 2nd ammendment. I am a member but sometimes the leaps of logic that is made truly boogle the mind. I just want the us to keep their noses in their own business and each person to make the choice what their kids watch or do not look at. Yet another way that ICANN really isn't sepe
  • Is this going to be a mandated move? IE: Will it be mandated that established porn sites move to their .XXX counterpart? Or, will this be voluntary? Also, what about borderline sites which serve multiple purposes, but do have pornographic content? If it's mandated, will this end up putting sites like that out of business?
  • It will never happen because the U.S. and Australian governments at least, among others, will never allow themselves to get into a situation where they appear to be endorsing porn. If they allow special technology to be built into the internet specifically for porn sites, conservatives will be up in arms. Creating a special domain for porn is simply not an option for these governments. Maybe in five or ten years things will be different, but at this time the U.S. is very religious and very conservative and
  • "Down with this sort of thing!"
  • Australia, the U.S., and the EU have moved to block the idea

    Now I RTFA and I didn't see that phrase. Our local press put on a wry grin and said [nzherald.co.nz]

    A bid to create a virtual red light district on the internet has been blocked by a "coalition of the unwilling" consisting of unlikely bedfellows the United States, Australia and Iran.

    The point is, in spite of all the protestations earlier about who controls ICANN, here it is in headlines, ICANN is controlled by governments, bureaucrats, born-again Southern C

The shortest distance between two points is under construction. -- Noelie Alito

Working...