XXX TLD Officially Open(about.xxx)
about.xxx
XXX TLD Officially Open
http://www.about.xxx/launch/
17 comments
Sunrise B: Brand Blackmail, early period
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.
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.
The fee for Sunrise B appears to be almost the same as the annual fee for actually registering. I assume you won't have to renew, though.
It is a one-time fee. About 200 dollars. godaddy has the lowest price that I've seen (199.00). I think it's a smart idea (if you own a registered trademark) as 200 dollars is a lot cheaper than getting attorneys to go after trademark violators... even if it's a guaranteed win. Registered trademarks carry a lot of legal protection and someone would have to be nuts to try and build a porn website using a registered trademark that they did not own. No legit company would do that as their lawyers should catch it and realize the potential financial doom.
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.
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.
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.
Just quietly: voilà. A viola is an instrument.
Viola is a common misspelling (of voila¹) that gets parodied by the more intelligent.
ZOMG !!!!111oneone!!!
--
1 - voila is the English language word equivalent to voilà. Voilà is French and so should be italicised to indicate it's a foreign word. There's no need to use voilà as one can use voila. Viola!!!!!oneone11!
ZOMG !!!!111oneone!!!
--
1 - voila is the English language word equivalent to voilà. Voilà is French and so should be italicised to indicate it's a foreign word. There's no need to use voilà as one can use voila. Viola!!!!!oneone11!
Or the verb raped in French. I honestly care less about the lack of à in an english context but the i-o swap makes quite an grammatically incorrect yet offensive typo, especially about the xxx TLD.
most people don't know how to quickly type: à
You could at least put the 'o' in front of the 'i'.
Mac OS: Option-`, a = à.
Windows: Alt-0-2-2-4 = à. Go Microsoft!
Windows: Alt-0-2-2-4 = à. Go Microsoft!
Mac OS X Lion: Hold a.
My http://bepo.fr/ Dvorak-like keyboard for French: direct access (left pinky, lower row).
For me it is simply: `, a = à. Using Windows. Go keyboard layouts! (United Kingdom Extended, in this case.)
Yes, if it was a mandate then elementary schools could use basic DNS servers to block then entire .xxx domain rather than having to try and use complex and expensive http content proxy filters that only partially work.
We used to evade the filter at school by entering IP addresses instead of normal URLs. (This also seems to work to evade the IWF.) Is there an easy way to block IP addresses based on a reverse-lookup match against .xxx?
Regardless, I could see this being used as an excuse to shunt porn sites to .xxx, even if doing so wouldn't actually solve anything.
Regardless, I could see this being used as an excuse to shunt porn sites to .xxx, even if doing so wouldn't actually solve anything.
OpenDNS? http://www.opendns.com/
As part of a filter I imagine $domain.$tld would get a highscore if $domain.xxx exists.
As part of a filter I imagine $domain.$tld would get a highscore if $domain.xxx exists.
"No one has to propose it openly since the threat is implicit."
What threat? There is no threat at all. It is not implicit or explicit. It is just another TLD for them to move into and make $$$.
What threat? There is no threat at all. It is not implicit or explicit. It is just another TLD for them to move into and make $$$.
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.
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.
Not really, since nothing is guaranteed to be on .xxx. If there was a requirement that people be forced onto .xxx you'd be correct, but people are going to be doing deep inspection anyway if they actually care about blocking content.
The question of enforcement is an entirely different one. I was talking about the mechanism, not the legalism.
This is one reason why global top level domains are a bad idea, there is no clear legal jurisdiction for them unlike country code domains. A legal framework can be built around xxx.us, for example, because it would map to an existing legal jurisdiction. The same can't be said for .xxx or meta-tags in documents served from arbitrary domains/locations.
This is one reason why global top level domains are a bad idea, there is no clear legal jurisdiction for them unlike country code domains. A legal framework can be built around xxx.us, for example, because it would map to an existing legal jurisdiction. The same can't be said for .xxx or meta-tags in documents served from arbitrary domains/locations.
this stuff makes far less practical sense than things like RTA labeling
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.
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.
+1 for the use of "wide penetration" in a post about .xxx domains :-)
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.
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.
Agree re: cash grab.
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.
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.
> Some parents out there are not at all OK with Disney content
Too bloody right. Here's a helpless girl that needs rescuing by a man to live happily ever after? No thanks.
Too bloody right. Here's a helpless girl that needs rescuing by a man to live happily ever after? No thanks.
> seems like a job for dedicated browser-recognized crypto certificate chains
You don't read the news much, do you? ;)
You don't read the news much, do you? ;)
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?
http://www.cms.kids.us http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/11/56429
http://www.cms.kids.us http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/11/56429
Ah yes, .xxx -- a solution to a problem that absolutely nobody had other than wannabe-censors.
And woe be to the adult company who registers a .xxx domain and redirects it to their .com site.
how about whitehouse.com? Quite a few kids stumbled into the world of porn through that domain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse.com
What about it indeed? .xxx doesn't solve that problem unless you forbid porn on every other domain.
In other words: .xxx really is a solution only for wannabe-censors.
In other words: .xxx really is a solution only for wannabe-censors.
" .xxx doesn't solve that problem unless you forbid porn on every other domain"
That is a perfectly plausible solution now that the .xxx TLD exists.
That is a perfectly plausible solution now that the .xxx TLD exists.
Are you joking?
1. Define "porn"
2. Get every other TLD operator, including all the international ones, on board with your definition and rules (e.g. are we only banning websites on port 80, or would FTP sites also be verboten? password-protected sites? is classical art exempt?)
3. Enforce the censorship via some kind of magical system that is automated, doesn't trigger false positives, and allows for an appeal process
Yeah, that'll be a snap to put together.
1. Define "porn"
2. Get every other TLD operator, including all the international ones, on board with your definition and rules (e.g. are we only banning websites on port 80, or would FTP sites also be verboten? password-protected sites? is classical art exempt?)
3. Enforce the censorship via some kind of magical system that is automated, doesn't trigger false positives, and allows for an appeal process
Yeah, that'll be a snap to put together.
You're setting the bar too high.
Legislators will simply say that all sites that feature nudity in a non medical setting will have to be on the xxx domain name. This isn't merely just porn so it can be passed off as 'neutral' and not legislating morality but rather legislating categorizations ("bringing order to the Wild West of the internet").
Now as for how they force sites onto the .xxx domain name, the choices are:
1. Legislators then simply blacklist all sites that feature nudity in other TLDs. This could be called the "Australian" approach or the "Great Firewall of Foo".
2. Fine companies within your country that are running sites outside of the XXX TLD. If only the US and EU do this, it'll drive 98% of the money-making porn industry into the XXX TLD. Then maybe for completionism you can implement #1 against 'foreign porn peddlers'.
False positives are not a concern for legislators. If there's a worry about blowback, they'll simply make the blacklist confidential, and the appeals process non-transparent.
Legislators will simply say that all sites that feature nudity in a non medical setting will have to be on the xxx domain name. This isn't merely just porn so it can be passed off as 'neutral' and not legislating morality but rather legislating categorizations ("bringing order to the Wild West of the internet").
Now as for how they force sites onto the .xxx domain name, the choices are:
1. Legislators then simply blacklist all sites that feature nudity in other TLDs. This could be called the "Australian" approach or the "Great Firewall of Foo".
2. Fine companies within your country that are running sites outside of the XXX TLD. If only the US and EU do this, it'll drive 98% of the money-making porn industry into the XXX TLD. Then maybe for completionism you can implement #1 against 'foreign porn peddlers'.
False positives are not a concern for legislators. If there's a worry about blowback, they'll simply make the blacklist confidential, and the appeals process non-transparent.
Don't forget:
0. Repeal the First Amendment.
0. Repeal the First Amendment.
Does this First Amendment require that you allow people to release porn movies as U rated? So why does labelling online, via a dedicated TLD suddenly mean that the First Amendment needs to be repealed?
Moreover most, if not all, such "speech" (dissemination of pornography) will ultimately be commercial and so not come under the full auspice of the First Amendment protections.
Moreover most, if not all, such "speech" (dissemination of pornography) will ultimately be commercial and so not come under the full auspice of the First Amendment protections.
Setting aside the fact that you're trolling...
The correct way to do something like this would be to use a whitelist TLD, e.g., .kids. Such would avoid questions of censorship, and of which content requires being legally shoved into the .xxx ghetto, and makes it real clear that if you put porn on a .kids domain you're going to get hammered.
The correct way to do something like this would be to use a whitelist TLD, e.g., .kids. Such would avoid questions of censorship, and of which content requires being legally shoved into the .xxx ghetto, and makes it real clear that if you put porn on a .kids domain you're going to get hammered.
My comment above links to the ghost-town that is *.KIDS.US, which - with Congressional support - tried to do exactly that. It failed then, and would fail now.
http://www.kids.us
http://www.kids.us
Or in other words:
Ah yes, .xxx -- a solution to a problem that absolutely nobody had other than wannabe-censors.
Ah yes, .xxx -- a solution to a problem that absolutely nobody had other than wannabe-censors.
I feel desensitized by the countless number of TLDs that have come out recently. I guess I should be excited by .XXX, but I just am not.
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.
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.
Is it so bad? It'll get easier to find the name you want as a domain.... http://<mydomain>.<tld>;
If anything, so many tlds would devalue the existing .coms, .net, .org... if only slightly.
If anything, so many tlds would devalue the existing .coms, .net, .org... if only slightly.
I think more and more people will rely on Google for navigational queries.
"Hey you should really check out this awesomestuff.sfdj website"
"I'll look at it when I get home."
... later in the day:
"Hmmm was it awesomestuff.com or awesomestuff.me ..."
"Let's ask Google for a link to awesomestuff"
"Hey you should really check out this awesomestuff.sfdj website"
"I'll look at it when I get home."
... later in the day:
"Hmmm was it awesomestuff.com or awesomestuff.me ..."
"Let's ask Google for a link to awesomestuff"
I agree. I think a lot of people do this already, and not just for sites where they can't remember the exact URL. It's often just as quick to type 'bbc' or 'facebook' into the Google search bar, especially if Google is your homepage. You don't have to worry about typos, either. Some computer users I know, older users, access everything that way. When I asked one why, she replied that she found the browser address bar "fiddly".
Earlier this year Bing stated that "about 30%" of search queries are navigational.[1]
[1] http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/20... (paragraph before penultimate screenshot)
Earlier this year Bing stated that "about 30%" of search queries are navigational.[1]
[1] http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/20... (paragraph before penultimate screenshot)
I'm with you, and they know this too. That's why they produced such a happy-sounding threat letter video.
It's only a matter of time before someone pays the ICM Registry for on A record on XXX. so they can have http://xxx/
Can I get xxx.xxx and then subdomain it out to my heart's content to anyone that wants to pay?
Martha Stewart can pay under Sunrise B to stop marthastewart.xxx, but can she stop marthastewart.xxx.xxx?
Martha Stewart can pay under Sunrise B to stop marthastewart.xxx, but can she stop marthastewart.xxx.xxx?
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.
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.
I want to register "fffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaxxxxxxx.xxx" and it can be a place people can send faxes online from
There's something difficult about saying "hey go to mypornsite dot x-x-x", it's 3 syllables over the conventional "dot com", "dot net" or "dot org."
Well, I think tripple X is probably the way most people will "say" it, if it's ever actually "said" - if you know what I mean.
When's the last time someone told you to go to a porn site in plain English, out loud, anywhere?
When's the last time someone told you to go to a porn site in plain English, out loud, anywhere?
"triple X" has the same number of syllables as "x x x"
But it's easier to pronounce.
As noted elsewhere, lots of things are easier to pronounce than "w w w", even things with fewer syllables.
They haven't caught on either.
They haven't caught on either.
how about "xs", as in "I don't want to have dinner with all of my exes."
.porn?
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?
www has three times as many syllables as 'world wide web', yet somehow it caught on.
Back in the day, we used to say "triple-dub" for www-- but that never caught on with the mainstream users, and died out around 1995 or 6, I suppose.
In Polish, it's pronounced wuwuwu
On the other hand, the length + repetition also makes it more memorable than most TLDs.
"Go to mysite dot tripl'x" ?
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.
That is all.
That is all.
Feel like I'm going to get in trouble checking this out at work ;) All anyone has to do now it filter by .xxx
What really needs to happen now is for lots of people to start registering domains for (preferably high profile) non-adult content websites.
Water down the domain so it no longer means much, so filtering by it becomes destructive.
Water down the domain so it no longer means much, so filtering by it becomes destructive.
Nice try, ICM Registry! (Domains are $200 p.a.)
That's not all that bad, all things considered. I probably spend more on breakfast cereal.
For that to be effective, any and all pornographic content in every other TLD will have to be banned. I don't see that happening...
That, IMO, is the reason for .xxx -- to make life easier for those who want to censor the internet.
I get the impression that the people who are blocking porn would not be customers of porn sites. In other words, only people who don't want to see .xxx sites would block them. So why is that any different from the AdBlock that I run in my browser already?
AdBlock is a personal decision and only affects what you see.
.xxx-blocking is likely to take the form of censorship and will make it easier for the censors to affect what other people see.
.xxx-blocking is likely to take the form of censorship and will make it easier for the censors to affect what other people see.
Hard to see what all the excitement is about while xxx.ly is still available.
So, who's gonna get lambdax.xxx ;-) ?
I can think of a ton of great domains, but at $250 or so a pop (including taxes) that's probably not going to happen.
Nobody I know in the adult industry is rushing to register anything either (except a few who are doing it purely as a defensive measure and don't plan to actually use it).
Nobody I know in the adult industry is rushing to register anything either (except a few who are doing it purely as a defensive measure and don't plan to actually use it).
> [registering .xxx] as a defensive measure and don't plan to actually use it.
This sounds like an even bigger necessity for companies not in the adult industry.
This sounds like an even bigger necessity for companies not in the adult industry.
You're the first person I know that knows someone in the adult industry... :)
I still (sort of) work in the adult industry :)
I worked at a big porn company a few years ago, and I do consulting for a porn startup now. I have other clients too, but it's a pretty fun industry to work in (fun parties, lots of great scaling challenges, etc).
I worked at a big porn company a few years ago, and I do consulting for a porn startup now. I have other clients too, but it's a pretty fun industry to work in (fun parties, lots of great scaling challenges, etc).
I'm a big fan of the Ratchet and Clank games, so I first thought of Lomba.xxx
how do they make these intro videos? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIDKnDSaWqE
Does this technique have a name? Are there any special tools for that?
I believe the name for that is kinetic type:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_typography
I'm not aware of any specialized tools, I've heard of using illustrator and after effects, however.
thank you, that was very helpful.
Since the MPAA got rid of the X rating, I'm glad we have this. Now the phrase "Triple X" won't become obsolete.
[deleted]
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.