North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain

  • From: Jim Popovitch
  • Date: Thu May 11 23:43:32 2006
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=EkG8JIiCS379h7+RMMvpykWRP3QiNPnV1KdQ7ETjsdpxTEMQ6dhgchsjFnbXQmlBviwygk8Krcfv99ztPRIhPfjZg5CXn/aZmodJPimzEy73ZYUvj+Yt2pYo6BnE6hdY9Hchb36tN3T3NAjfmxXrGl0nplS9j8MJzxUe7iINL8s= ;

David Schwartz wrote:
	The major problem with this is that many other governments have "dangerous
ideas" that they'd also like to be easily able to identify and isolate as
well. If the United States gets to corral porn, why can't China corral
Democracy? Why can't Russia corral advocates of "terrorism" (which some
might consider independence).

	I think it would be an incredibly short-sighted policy on the part of the
U.S. government to restrict the Internet in the hopes of controlling things
like gambling and pornography. The precedent of government isolating
"dangerous ideas" will be adopted by many other governments and we will have
no sound ideological grounds to oppose.

Excellent points.

I question then why we even have a need for any TLDs. Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog. This would make life soooooo much easier for many many companies that are legally forced to have to register every freaking TLD in their name just to protect IP etc. I would imagine that the US Govt would back this proposal simply because of the problems with a particular TLD for www.whitehouse.

For the sake of discussion, please don't branch into an argument about scalability. ;-)

-Jim P.