Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On 5/11/06, Robert Bonomi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there. And _that_ is *precisely* why not. grin There have been at least three generations of proposals for .xxx 1 - In the early days, before ICANN's coup, while there was still active discussion about how to manage the DNS, there were proposals to create .sex and/or .xxx to sell to porn sites, and some of the alt-root types succeeded in making some money doing so. 2 - A few years ago, some US prudes proposed creating a .xxx to exile all the porn sites too, and at some point proposals were made to ICANN to create it. 3 - Shortly thereafter, other US prudes who weren't in the loop heard that there was a proposal to have *pornography* on the *internet*, and got upset and tried to ban .xxx. Tree-structured hierarchies are so much fun - there's inherently the potential for a power struggle for ownership of the root, and it's quite easy for the tree to absorb competitors or be absorbed by competitors (e.g. foo.altrootgang1.altroots.net. or microsoft.com.icannroot. both work, though the former annoys fewer people.) And Peter says he's working with Joe Baptista, so he doesn't need Jim Fleming to make his net.troll quota for the month :-) (Joe may be a troll, but he's done some *really* impressive trolling, particularly involving fax machines and the Canadian government.) -- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On Friday 12 May 2006 23:47, Barry Shein wrote: The namespace *was* flat, once. That didn't scale, and not just because of technical limitations -- the fact that there are only so many useful combinations of 26 letters in a relatively short name had some weight in there too. Fortunately unicode has rather more than 26 letters, even the DNS allows rathers more than 26, except for the first character of a hostname. So hierarchical naming was standardized (some forms of nonstandard hierarchy existed before then), and it's unlikely we're going back anytime in the foreseeable future. But there's no technical advantage of a hierarchical system over a simple hashing scheme, they're basically isomorphic other than a hash system can more easily be tuned to a particular distribution goal. Amazing how many experienced people seem to be saying this isn't possible, given there are already schemes out there using flat namespaces for large problems (e.g. Skype, freenet, various file sharing systems). Most of these are also far more dynamic than the DNS in nature, and most have no management overhead with them, you run the software and the namespace just works. I looked at a couple of these, and sneezed out a new system for a friend in a couple of hours, when he needed one, without great effort, the main thing was to avoid known pitfalls. So far it seems to work. However I think the pain in DNS for most people is the hierarchy, but the diverse registration systems. i.e. It isn't that it is delegated, it is that delegates all do their own thing. I've always pondered doing a flat, simple part of the DNS, or even an overlay, but of course it needs a business model of sorts. The main motivation was security, as currently the DNS model lacks PKI, and it doesn't look as if any amount of reworking the existing protocols is going to provide a suitable security framework soon, unless you count HTTPS/SSL and that still doesn't handle virtual hosting, and adds yet more management overhead in a hierarchical trust model. I wouldn't have fancied doing any of these things when the DNS was conceived, but both hardware and software have moved on enormously. Eventually these technologies will be replaced, and if it isn't done in an open and shared manner, the technologies will be replaced by proprietary systems.
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
But there's no technical advantage of a hierarchical system over a simple hashing scheme, they're basically isomorphic other than a hash system can more easily be tuned to a particular distribution goal. Amazing how many experienced people seem to be saying this isn't possible, given there are already schemes out there using flat namespaces for large problems (e.g. Skype, freenet, various file sharing systems). Most of these are also far more dynamic than the DNS in nature, and most have no management overhead with them, you run the software and the namespace just works. According to your description, this is a hierarchical naming system. At the top level you have Skype, freenet, etc. defining separate namespaces. Because DNS was intended to be a universal naming system, it had to incorporate the hierarchy into the system. However I think the pain in DNS for most people is the hierarchy, but the diverse registration systems. i.e. It isn't that it is delegated, it is that delegates all do their own thing. Seems to me that this is part of the definition of delegate. Some would say that this makes for a more robust system than a monolithic hierarchy where everyone has to toe the party line. I've always pondered doing a flat, simple part of the DNS, or even an overlay, but of course it needs a business model of sorts. It has been tried at least twice and failed. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/13/realnames_goes_titsup_com/ http://www.idcommons.net --Michael Dillon
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But there's no technical advantage of a hierarchical system over a simple hashing scheme, they're basically isomorphic other than a hash system can more easily be tuned to a particular distribution goal. Amazing how many experienced people seem to be saying this isn't possible, given there are already schemes out there using flat namespaces for large problems (e.g. Skype, freenet, various file sharing systems). Most of these are also far more dynamic than the DNS in nature, and most have no management overhead with them, you run the software and the namespace just works. djbdns with its hashing technique could do that but Bind 9 would break. There is still the problem wich single point would manage that database. According to your description, this is a hierarchical naming system. At the top level you have Skype, freenet, etc. defining separate namespaces. Because DNS was intended to be a universal naming system, it had to incorporate the hierarchy into the system. However I think the pain in DNS for most people is the hierarchy, but the diverse registration systems. i.e. It isn't that it is delegated, it is that delegates all do their own thing. Seems to me that this is part of the definition of delegate. Some would say that this makes for a more robust system than a monolithic hierarchy where everyone has to toe the party line. I've always pondered doing a flat, simple part of the DNS, or even an overlay, but of course it needs a business model of sorts. It has been tried at least twice and failed. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/13/realnames_goes_titsup_com/ http://www.idcommons.net --Michael Dillon It seems to work now. Just google for Apple: Rendezvous and Bonjour There are libs for linux and Microsoft too. Both Rendezvous and Bonjour are working. There is an incompatible version from Microsoft too, some say it is vaporware but I can still their queries for '.local' on our nameservers. Cheers Peter and Karin Dambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Dambier) [Mon 15 May 2006, 11:11 CEST]: Both Rendezvous and Bonjour are working. They are the same thing. Rendezvous got renamed Bonjour after a trademark dispute. See http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=891 There is an incompatible version from Microsoft too, some say it is vaporware but I can still their queries for '.local' on our nameservers. You are in so out of your depth it's just not funny anymore. Is there any possibility you have future postings clue-checked by someone, to avoid further embarrassments to yourself? -- Niels. -- Calling religion a drug is an insult to drugs everywhere. Religion is more like the placebo of the masses. -- MeFi user boaz
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On Fri, 12 May 2006, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: What are they talking about? .XXX already exists: %dig ns xxx @g.public-root.com ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: xxx. 172800 IN NS eugene.kashpureff.org. omg that is is super internet lols. seriously, best ns evar. thx for the giggles. [EMAIL PROTECTED]darwin Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity. - Marshall McLuhan
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Fred Baker wrote: On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall that we actually HAD a hostname file that we traded around... Let's not go backwards now ;-) Note: I didn't advocate replacing DNS with host files. I'll attempt to clarify: If X number of DNS servers can server Y number of TLDs, why can't X number of completely re-designed DNS servers handle just root domain names without a TLD. Examples: www.microsoft smtp.microsoft www.google www.yahoo mail.yahoo Why have a TLD when for most of the world: www.cnn.CO.UK is forwarded to www.cnn.COM www.microsoft.NET is forwarded to www.microsoft.COM www.google.NET is forwarded to www.google.COM etc., etc. There are very few arguments that I've heard for even having TLDs in the first place. The most common one was Businesses will use .COM, Networks will use .NET, Organizations and Garden Clubs will use .ORG. When in reality Businesses scoop up all the TLDs in their name/interest. Why does it matter if your routers and switches are in DNS as 123.company.NET vrs 123.routers.company I do understand that today's DNS system was designed with TLDs in mind, and probably couldn't just switch over night. But why can't a next-gen system be put in place that puts www.microsoft and www.google right where they go now whether you use .net, .com, .org, or probably any other TLD? -Jim P.
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
At 02:22 AM 5/12/2006, Jim Popovitch wrote: Fred Baker wrote: On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall that we actually HAD a hostname file that we traded around... Let's not go backwards now ;-) Note: I didn't advocate replacing DNS with host files. I'll attempt to clarify: If X number of DNS servers can server Y number of TLDs, why can't X number of completely re-designed DNS servers handle just root domain names without a TLD. Examples: www.microsoft smtp.microsoft www.google www.yahoo mail.yahoo Why have a TLD when for most of the world: www.cnn.CO.UK is forwarded to www.cnn.COM www.microsoft.NET is forwarded to www.microsoft.COM www.google.NET is forwarded to www.google.COM etc., etc. There are very few arguments that I've heard for even having TLDs in the first place. The most common one was Businesses will use .COM, Networks will use .NET, Organizations and Garden Clubs will use .ORG. When in reality Businesses scoop up all the TLDs in their name/interest. Yes, but that was when you actually wouldn't dare get a .org for yourself unless you really were qualified under the guidelines. Same for .net. The distinctions have been meaningless for quite some time. They are simply placeholders. Why does it matter if your routers and switches are in DNS as 123.company.NET vrs 123.routers.company I do understand that today's DNS system was designed with TLDs in mind, and probably couldn't just switch over night. But why can't a next-gen system be put in place that puts www.microsoft and www.google right where they go now whether you use .net, .com, .org, or probably any other TLD? Im having an offline discussion with a list member and I'll ask, why does it matter if you have a domain name if a directory can hold everything you need to know about them via key words and ip-addrs, NAT's and all? -M -- Martin Hannigan(c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation(w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 11, 2006, at 11:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: Im having an offline discussion with a list member and I'll ask, why does it matter if you have a domain name if a directory can hold everything you need to know about them via key words and ip-addrs, NAT's and all? It's all about authority, literally and figuratively. Google might be a good search engine, but I don't control google like I control my zones. Being that google is evil now, I don't think I want to give them authority for my zones. ;) -David
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 11, 2006, at 11:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: Im having an offline discussion with a list member and I'll ask, why does it matter if you have a domain name if a directory can hold everything you need to know about them via key words and ip- addrs, NAT's and all? I think there is a place for that discussion; a directory would allow for containment, which might allow the same character string to be used as a name by different groups if they have sufficiently low probability of needing to communicate. There are other ways to handle this as well. You might google some out-dated drafts by John Klensin that mention such a concept. As someone else mentioned, there is this authority thing, though. So who manages this name directory? If there is a directory managed by a central agency of some sort that in turn hands LDAP queries (or whatever) off to local instances of directories managed by companies, how does that differ (apart from the use of a different transport) from what DNS does today? Is that central directory-managing authority someone we have to collectively agree to, and how do we do that? How do changes in that directory get made? And if there is no central directory, then basically we have the size and complexity of the .com, .net, .org, and other large namespaces to contend with - just how do we determine that www.renesys translates to 69.84.130.137 and not to 198.133.219.25? How do we distribute that information, and assure ourselves that it got distributed correctly? I'm not saying it is impossible, or even difficult. I am, however, pointing out that the job DNS does today would have to be done in the new regime, and would have to be done at least as well, and would be fairly likely to have many of the same characteristics, at least when taken in the large. Now, as to ccTLDs vs gTLDs, if anyone wants to eliminate one or the other they get my vote. I think that gTLDs mostly create a mess, and if I were King they would have been eliminated a long time ago. But that is the opinion of one person, and is probably worth what you paid to receive it.
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Jim Popovitch wrote: Fred Baker wrote: On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall that we actually HAD a hostname file that we traded around... Let's not go backwards now ;-) Actually we in fact still have all that - bunch of records (around 230k now) distributed globally with specialized protocol. There is of course some talk that combined with 15%/year growth that is not sustainable long-term... Note: I didn't advocate replacing DNS with host files. I'll attempt to clarify: If X number of DNS servers can server Y number of TLDs, why can't X number of completely re-designed DNS servers handle just root domain names without a TLD. I strongly suspect that they actually can right now. But like above mentioned distributed 230k host route file, many millions of records entered in just a few dns servers may not be scalable long-term. However I think each name in the root zone is not workable solution primarily politically - there are too many organizations with same name - some can be identified by their area of specialty, some identified by their specific geographic location and many many others are not that distinguishable but still have the same name. What about trademarks you ask? Well the thing is what is trademark in one geographic location, may not be trademark in another. Nor are all the trademarks truly universal for all types of activity. So while our current system is not perfect for everyone, in general it seems to be the only right approach to take. Unfortunately this does leave many holes that are abused for financial reasons in various ways. But I think system with global names in root zones would be abused in even worth ways... -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On 5/11/06, Derek J. Balling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you think *that's* why .XXX died, then I have a small bridge to sell you providing access to Manhattan island. Derek, I could use your little bridge for our garden, but I am afraid I cannot pay for it :) Todd Vierling wrote: I'll offer you advice once offered to me. Read the sign on the padded cell: Do not feed the troll. Todd you got it. Sorry I could not resist such a fat chance. Peter's about 51 cards shy of a full deck when it comes to TLDs. I still have a back-of-my-head suspicion that he's a new alter ago of Jim Fleming. g Participating in some of the alternatives I am intersted in what becomes of The Root and what becomes of DNS. I am working together with Joe Baptista on the IASON project. http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ I like some of Jim's ideas, but I never succeded to contact him :) Cheers Peter and Karin Dambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Why have a TLD when for most of the world: www.cnn.CO.UK is forwarded to www.cnn.COM www.microsoft.NET is forwarded to www.microsoft.COM www.google.NET is forwarded to www.google.COM Not all organizations simply FORWARD sites. At different times I have used www.google.com, www.google.co.uk, www.google.ca, www.google.ru, www.google.de, and www.google.com.au They are different because I can select different subsets of the total database to search. www.apple.ca does forward, but not as you think. Try it right now, look at the price of that MacBook Pro and then see what your Apple Store sells it for. In the past, some ISPs have use .net for internal email addresses and .com for customers of their mail services. Whether or not it is COMMON for organizations to make distinctions based on TLDs, some have clearly done so and I don't see why we should subtract that capability. Many of the new TLDs that are in operation, and that are being proposed, are primarily MARKETING EXERCISES. Let me ask you, does the world need a new way for pornography to be marketed? When .COM, .EDU, .NET and .ORG were invented, they had a purpose other than as marketing exercises. If only we could get some serious support for new TLDs that make some kind of sense, other than as marketing opportunities for the small number of people in the registry and registrar business. --Michael Dillon
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On 12-May-2006, at 01:17, Martin Hannigan wrote: At 2:43 PM -0400 05:11:2006, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort. the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial, Negative. 92% of the root is under US jurisdiction How are you measuring the root, for the purposes of that assertion? Joe
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
earlier i wrote: the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort. the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial, as the cctlds cover that, and the authority, nominally, is a 501(c)(3) in marina del rey, and, purely contractual, as is the registry restricted to cooperative entities and the registry restricted to aviation entities. this drew a response from martin hannigan: : Negative. 92% of the root is under US jurisdiction with most ccTLD's : riding on that infrastructure. I'm in the process of analyzing that : now. I'll let you know what the number comes out to, but I bet it's : close. having been a party to the drafting of the icann new gtld contracts, an interested party in the case of the neu* .biz contract, and an invited, if ad hoc, expert in the case of the aero/coop/museum contracts, mostly at louis touton's initiative, i'm of the (ianal) opinion that other than the easily answered california incorporated 501(c)(3) jurisdictional question implicit in the contracts between icann and the new gtld sponsors, that no jurisdictional restrictions were specified in the ngtld contracts. some actual lawyer may comment on the distinction between statutory authority over the conduct of parties to a private contract, and the civil law jurisdiction the parties agree to to resolve contractual disputes. there are parties that hold a territorial jurisdiction trumps all point of view. the us doc placed territorial jurisdiction (physical location) requirements in the .us rfp, which i also wrote the winning response to, so all .us nameservers are within the continental united states. personally i view this requirement as brain-dead. similarly, icann last summer adopted a contested redelegation process for cctlds which values territorial jurisdiction claims. personally i view this process change as brain-dead. obviously, milage varries. now the issue of controlling authority has come up previously, and the claim that there is only one jurisdiction, the us, has also been made previously. see the w3c's p3p standard, and the data collection (aka privacy) policy regimes we (i'm wearing that co-author hat now) provided mechanism for. again, ymmv. eric
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Aside from all of the technical aspects that would make having a .xxx tld difficult at best, you have to take into account the moral aspects. If all of the adult sites were to switch to the .xxx format, it would make it extremely easy (as if it isn't right now) for minors to locate and access websites that they shouldn't be allowed to view. Instead of having to google for porn, all they'd have to do is type: favoritepornhere.xxx and shabaaam! there they go. Just my 2 cents. Gregory Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Eric Brunner-Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 6:20 AM Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain earlier i wrote: the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort. the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial, as the cctlds cover that, and the authority, nominally, is a 501(c)(3) in marina del rey, and, purely contractual, as is the registry restricted to cooperative entities and the registry restricted to aviation entities. this drew a response from martin hannigan: : Negative. 92% of the root is under US jurisdiction with most ccTLD's : riding on that infrastructure. I'm in the process of analyzing that : now. I'll let you know what the number comes out to, but I bet it's : close. having been a party to the drafting of the icann new gtld contracts, an interested party in the case of the neu* .biz contract, and an invited, if ad hoc, expert in the case of the aero/coop/museum contracts, mostly at louis touton's initiative, i'm of the (ianal) opinion that other than the easily answered california incorporated 501(c)(3) jurisdictional question implicit in the contracts between icann and the new gtld sponsors, that no jurisdictional restrictions were specified in the ngtld contracts. some actual lawyer may comment on the distinction between statutory authority over the conduct of parties to a private contract, and the civil law jurisdiction the parties agree to to resolve contractual disputes. there are parties that hold a territorial jurisdiction trumps all point of view. the us doc placed territorial jurisdiction (physical location) requirements in the .us rfp, which i also wrote the winning response to, so all .us nameservers are within the continental united states. personally i view this requirement as brain-dead. similarly, icann last summer adopted a contested redelegation process for cctlds which values territorial jurisdiction claims. personally i view this process change as brain-dead. obviously, milage varries. now the issue of controlling authority has come up previously, and the claim that there is only one jurisdiction, the us, has also been made previously. see the w3c's p3p standard, and the data collection (aka privacy) policy regimes we (i'm wearing that co-author hat now) provided mechanism for. again, ymmv. eric
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Jim Popovitch wrote: Note: I didn't advocate replacing DNS with host files. I'll attempt to clarify: If X number of DNS servers can server Y number of TLDs, why can't X number of completely re-designed DNS servers handle just root domain names without a TLD. Examples: www.microsoft smtp.microsoft www.google www.yahoo mail.yahoo Why have a TLD when for most of the world: www.cnn.CO.UK is forwarded to www.cnn.COM www.microsoft.NET is forwarded to www.microsoft.COM www.google.NET is forwarded to www.google.COM etc., etc. There are very few arguments that I've heard for even having TLDs in the first place. The most common one was Businesses will use .COM, Networks will use .NET, Organizations and Garden Clubs will use .ORG. When in reality Businesses scoop up all the TLDs in their name/interest. Why does it matter if your routers and switches are in DNS as 123.company.NET vrs 123.routers.company I do understand that today's DNS system was designed with TLDs in mind, and probably couldn't just switch over night. But why can't a next-gen system be put in place that puts www.microsoft and www.google right where they go now whether you use .net, .com, .org, or probably any other TLD? Note that there are a lot more TLDs than just .COM, .NET, .ORG, etc. The vast majority of them are geographical rather than divided based on organizational function. For large portions of the world, the local TLD allows domain holders to get a domain paid for in local currency, for a price that's locally affordable, with local DNS servers for the TLD. For gTLDs they'd have to pay in US dollars, at prices that are set for Americans, and have them served far away on the other ends of expensive and flaky International transit connections. -Steve
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Steve Gibbard wrote: Note that there are a lot more TLDs than just .COM, .NET, .ORG, etc. The vast majority of them are geographical rather than divided based on organizational function. For large portions of the world, the local TLD allows domain holders to get a domain paid for in local currency, for a price that's locally affordable, with local DNS servers for the TLD. For gTLDs they'd have to pay in US dollars, at prices that are set for Americans, and have them served far away on the other ends of expensive and flaky International transit connections. Elimination of TLDs would in no way mandate that people register domains from one global entity. Today we have multiple entities registering domains back to multiple authorities, why not just have one authority and allow for multiple regional registrars. TLDs just add confusion to everything, and add complexity to the back-end. Perhaps there is a better list to move this discussion to, if someone would point me in that direction I would be glad to check it out. -Jim P.
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Steve Gibbard wrote: ... Note that there are a lot more TLDs than just .COM, .NET, .ORG, etc. The vast majority of them are geographical rather than divided based on organizational function. For large portions of the world, the local TLD allows domain holders to get a domain paid for in local currency, for a price that's locally affordable, with local DNS servers for the TLD. For gTLDs they'd have to pay in US dollars, at prices that are set for Americans, and have them served far away on the other ends of expensive and flaky International transit connections. -Steve The problem with ccTLDs is the same as with telefone numbers. You lose them as soon as you move. Maybe that is not a problem in north america, but in europe it is. You must live in a country to be allowed to register and keep a domain there. Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On 5/12/06, Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elimination of TLDs would in no way mandate that people register domains from one global entity. Today we have multiple entities registering domains back to multiple authorities, why not just have one authority and allow for multiple regional registrars. TLDs just add confusion to everything, and add complexity to the back-end. Perhaps there is a better list to move this discussion to, if someone would point me in that direction I would be glad to check it out. There is no list to which you could move this discussion -- that ship sailed almost 23 years ago (see RFC882 and RFC883). The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and arguments to the contrary will convince on the order of sqrt(-1) people. -- -- Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Fred Baker wrote: Now, as to ccTLDs vs gTLDs, if anyone wants to eliminate one or the other they get my vote. The political reality is that ccTLDs will never go away. The business reality is that gTLDs (at least the majority of the ones we have now) will never go away. So, can we move on to something *slightly* less pointless, like moving .gov and .mil under .us where they belong? :) Doug -- If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote: The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and arguments to the contrary will convince on the order of sqrt(-1) people. As if you couldn't just hash on whatever the last component is and pick a server on that basis? Query(server[Sum(bytes) mod Nservers])? There are probably good answers to people's suggestions for change but working backwards from that's the way we've always done it with trailing remarks intended to stifle a response isn't, to my mind, an answer. The best answer I can think of off-hand is that dropping .com etc wouldn't add much, if anything. Any savings in typing would be off-set by having to generate non-colliding names which would've been .com and .org, etc. It would just be creating a new TLD, the null TLD moving collision avoidance left by one. As to .XXX: To my mind the real camel's nose in the tent is that to create it would seem to urge or at least validate its enforcement and coercive means would necessarily arise (civil lawsuits, criminal charges, regulatory apparatus.) Otherwise of what use would it be, in terms of the conceptions of its champions as opposed to unintended consequences? The deeper problem is the conception by many (unwashed) that someone must be in charge, we used to get calls asking for contact info for the Internet complaint dept, and they didn't mean us. People were often shocked to hear that we had no answer. And widespread conceptions like that have a way of materializing, sans some force of resistance. I suppose some may say it's 10 years too late for that comment. -- -Barry Shein The World | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Login: Nationwide Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Steve Gibbard wrote: price that's locally affordable, with local DNS servers for the TLD. For gTLDs they'd have to pay in US dollars, Maybe. at prices that are set for Americans, Maybe. and have them served far away on the other ends of expensive and flaky International transit connections. Not. -- Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows Apple Valley, CA Resident of Southern California - the home of beautiful people and butt-ugly traffic jams
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
From: Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 15:45:46 -0400
Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote:
The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity
namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and
arguments to the contrary will convince on the order of sqrt(-1)
people.
As if you couldn't just hash on whatever the last component is and
pick a server on that basis? Query(server[Sum(bytes) mod Nservers])?
That's right, you =couldn't=. In the first case, *WHO* runs that server?
What if you are the -only- hit in that hash bucket?
What do you do if *nobody* is running a server for that hash bucket when
you want to register a name that hashes into it?
The current DNS architecture has a 1:1 correspondence with 'levels',
'zones', zone administrators, and administrative authority.
Every 'TLD' has its own, *independant*, administrative policies.
Some of them have 'structured' second levels, (e.g. .uk., .tw., .jp)
others *don't* (e.g. .no, .fr, .ca, .ch).
If you just eliminate the top level, then *which* (in the end, there can
only be one) of the various '.com.{CC} registrars gets to control the
'new' .com, and what happens to the registrations in all the _other_
'.com.{CC} 2nd-levels that are now disenfranchised?
If you eliminate all the 'structured' name elements, you have a 'mell of
a hess' of name collisions to deal have to resolve. *who* gets to use
'McDonalds', for example. the American hamburger chain, or the Scots Clan?
Who gets to use yellowpages? (anybody remember why Sun had to change the
name of their network directory service?) who gets shaw, 'shaw.ca', or
'shaw.com'? They're *not* the same company. :)
There are probably good answers to people's suggestions for change but
working backwards from that's the way we've always done it with
trailing remarks intended to stifle a response isn't, to my mind, an
answer.
It is 'unworkable'. because there's a *whole*lot* more to it than just
the technical matter of 'serving' DNS records. And any proposal that views
things from _that_ standpoint only, is, by *definition*, defective.
The best answer I can think of off-hand is that dropping .com etc
wouldn't add much, if anything. Any savings in typing would be off-set
by having to generate non-colliding names which would've been .com and
.org, etc. It would just be creating a new TLD, the null TLD moving
collision avoidance left by one.
It also eliminates one layer in the 'distribution' of load. resulting
in a several (decimal) order-of-magnitude concentration of (a) data, and
(b) queries, to the top-level servers. The effect of 'b' can be ameliorated
by deploying that same several-orders-of magnitude number of additional
root servers. the increase in the size of the 'local' database is a
whole different issue -- *and* the fact that is is being more-or-less
constantly updated; *unlike* the 'root' zone, where the TLDs are fairly
static.
An argument could be made for splitting '.com' into, say '.com01' through
'.com64', by arbitrarily re-assigning all the existing .com's into random
members of the new set. *AND* prohibiting any 'party' from owning/controlling
the 'same' second-level name in more than one of those TLDs. Continue to
allow 'challenges' to a registration, based on trademark, etc. but deactivate
the 'infringing' registration, rather than 'turn it over to the other party'.
This allows for multiple parties who _have_ rights to the same name to all
use the same '2nd level' element w/o conflict.
A better argument can be made for eliminating almost all of the 'generic'
TLDs. '.int' (or an equivalent) needs to be kept around for organizations
that are _not_ under the jurisdication of any national government.
The other 'classic' generics (.mil, .gov, .net, .com, and .org) could be
folded into '.us' as structured 2nd-level names, as is done in many other
national TLDs.
Note: this proposal _also_ defuses the issue of having ICANN establish
UDRP. Since the all the names conflicts now occur under a single body of
law, already-established court procedure in *each* jurisdiction can be
used to resolve issues in _that_ jurisdiction. Bye-bye to the cross-border
conflicts/issues on *that* matter.
*IF* one is going to have 'generic' TLDs, I'd suggest they should be reserved
for major multi-national operations. e.g. the '.net' TLD reserved for
network operators with 'physical presense' in at least (say) 25 countries,
a .net.{CC} domain in each of those countries, _and_ 'direct' allocation
of an IP address block for each of those 'national' operations.
As to .XXX:
To my mind the real camel's nose in the tent is that to create it
would seem to urge or at least validate its enforcement and coercive
means would necessarily arise (civil lawsuits, criminal charges
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On 5/12/06, Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote: The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and arguments to the contrary will convince on the order of sqrt(-1) people. As if you couldn't just hash on whatever the last component is and pick a server on that basis? Query(server[Sum(bytes) mod Nservers])? There are probably good answers to people's suggestions for change but working backwards from that's the way we've always done it If you bothered to read the 1983 RFCs I mentioned, and others related to machine naming, you'd realize that the DNS of today is not, in fact, the way we've always done it. The namespace *was* flat, once. That didn't scale, and not just because of technical limitations -- the fact that there are only so many useful combinations of 26 letters in a relatively short name had some weight in there too. So hierarchical naming was standardized (some forms of nonstandard hierarchy existed before then), and it's unlikely we're going back anytime in the foreseeable future. Changing *how* the names are structured into a different hierarchy of organization, I could believe. Changing the fact that they are structured back to being unstructured... the ship has already sailed. -- -- Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
What are they talking about? .XXX already exists: %dig ns xxx @g.public-root.com ; DiG 9.3.2 ns xxx @g.public-root.com ; (1 server found) ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 65 ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;xxx. IN NS ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: xxx. 172800 IN NS eugene.kashpureff.org. xxx. 172800 IN NS ga.dnspros.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ga.dnspros.net. 172800 IN A 64.27.14.2 ;; Query time: 2 msec ;; SERVER: 199.5.157.131#53(199.5.157.131) ;; WHEN: Fri May 12 18:12:48 2006 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 100 Oh, sorry - you mean in the restricted USG root where ICANN actually has to approve new TLDs rather than just doing the technical coordination (the ONLY thing they were tasked to do in the first place). Freedom/Free Market Score: Inclusive Namespace: INFINITY, ICANN: ZERO
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 12, 2006, at 3:26 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: What are they talking about? .XXX already exists: No it doesn't, see below: dig ns xxx @g.LookMaICanAlsoSplinterTheNameSpace.com ; DiG 9.2.1 ns xxx @10.24.0.7 ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 3245 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;xxx. IN NS ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: . 86400 IN SOA Kook.LookMaICanAlsoSplinterTheNameSpace.com ;; Query time: 4 msec ;; SERVER: g.LookMaICanAlsoSplinterTheNameSpace.com#53(192.0.2.1) ;; WHEN: Fri May 12 15:34:17 2006 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 96 And this is exactly why there should be only 1 namespace. W %dig ns xxx @g.public-root.com ; DiG 9.3.2 ns xxx @g.public-root.com ; (1 server found) ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 65 ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;xxx. IN NS ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: xxx. 172800 IN NS eugene.kashpureff.org. xxx. 172800 IN NS ga.dnspros.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ga.dnspros.net. 172800 IN A 64.27.14.2 ;; Query time: 2 msec ;; SERVER: 199.5.157.131#53(199.5.157.131) ;; WHEN: Fri May 12 18:12:48 2006 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 100 Oh, sorry - you mean in the restricted USG root where ICANN actually has to approve new TLDs rather than just doing the technical coordination (the ONLY thing they were tasked to do in the first place). Freedom/Free Market Score: Inclusive Namespace: INFINITY, ICANN: ZERO Life is a concentration camp. You're stuck here and there's no way out and you can only rage impotently against your persecutors. -- Woody Allen
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 12, 2006 at 16:55 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
From: Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 15:45:46 -0400
Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote:
The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity
namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and
arguments to the contrary will convince on the order of sqrt(-1)
people.
As if you couldn't just hash on whatever the last component is and
pick a server on that basis? Query(server[Sum(bytes) mod Nservers])?
That's right, you =couldn't=. In the first case, *WHO* runs that server?
What if you are the -only- hit in that hash bucket?
What do you do if *nobody* is running a server for that hash bucket when
you want to register a name that hashes into it?
I'll just say that you don't seem to understand the mathematics of
hashing. Put another way, it wouldn't be wise to make Nservers larger
(or smaller) than the actual number of servers.
The current DNS architecture has a 1:1 correspondence with 'levels',
'zones', zone administrators, and administrative authority.
Every 'TLD' has its own, *independant*, administrative policies.
Some of them have 'structured' second levels, (e.g. .uk., .tw., .jp)
others *don't* (e.g. .no, .fr, .ca, .ch).
If you just eliminate the top level, then *which* (in the end, there can
only be one) of the various '.com.{CC} registrars gets to control the
'new' .com, and what happens to the registrations in all the _other_
'.com.{CC} 2nd-levels that are now disenfranchised?
Obviously changing things would require changes.
At any rate it wasn't completely clear whether this was instead of the
current hierarchy or in addition to it.
If you eliminate all the 'structured' name elements, you have a 'mell of
a hess' of name collisions to deal have to resolve. *who* gets to use
'McDonalds', for example. the American hamburger chain, or the Scots Clan?
Who gets to use yellowpages? (anybody remember why Sun had to change the
name of their network directory service?) who gets shaw, 'shaw.ca', or
'shaw.com'? They're *not* the same company. :)
I mentioned these problems in the note you responded to.
--
-Barry Shein
The World | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Login: Nationwide
Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 12, 2006 at 18:12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote: On 5/12/06, Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Todd Vierling) wrote: The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and arguments to the contrary will convince on the order of sqrt(-1) people. As if you couldn't just hash on whatever the last component is and pick a server on that basis? Query(server[Sum(bytes) mod Nservers])? There are probably good answers to people's suggestions for change but working backwards from that's the way we've always done it If you bothered to read the 1983 RFCs I mentioned, and others related to machine naming, you'd realize that the DNS of today is not, in fact, the way we've always done it. I've been on the net since 1977, nearly 30 years. I participated in the public discussions which led to the current DNS system. I managed Boston University's campus-wide internet environment when the DNS system was implemented ca 1984-5. When my group connected BU to the internet the host table was still in use. Hunt down BU joins the internet, a typo in our initial update tickled a bug in the bsd hosttable program which brought down about 2/3 of the internet (yes, down.) I can't say I'm proud of that, but it's kind of hard to forget. The namespace *was* flat, once. That didn't scale, and not just because of technical limitations -- the fact that there are only so many useful combinations of 26 letters in a relatively short name had some weight in there too. So hierarchical naming was standardized (some forms of nonstandard hierarchy existed before then), and it's unlikely we're going back anytime in the foreseeable future. But there's no technical advantage of a hierarchical system over a simple hashing scheme, they're basically isomorphic other than a hash system can more easily be tuned to a particular distribution goal. There might be political or sociological or managerial advantages, but spreading out requests in a reasonably balanced manner among more than one server is a fairly simple technical problem. So that alone is not really a showstopper. I don't dispute the practical, non-technical issues. Changing *how* the names are structured into a different hierarchy of organization, I could believe. Changing the fact that they are structured back to being unstructured... the ship has already sailed. So your argument is that it shouldn't be considered because that's not the way it is. At any rate, as I said in my note I'm not advocating this, I'm just pointing out that some of the arguments against it have been rather shallow, claiming it wasn't technically practical or that's not the way it's been done so that's not the way it will be done. There's no particular technical reason not to flatten the namespace, particularly 30 years later with modern hardware where the compute cost of hashing vs strrchr(host,'.') wouldn't be as much of an issue. There are practical, non-technical issues. My understanding wasn't that the suggestion was to eliminate all hierarchy, only to eliminate the manor TLDs (.com, .net, .org), I believe the example was something like lists.nanog rather than lists.nanog.org. -- -Barry Shein The World | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Login: Nationwide Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
... use. Hunt down BU joins the internet, a typo in our initial update tickled a bug in the bsd hosttable program which brought down about 2/3 of the internet (yes, down.) I can't say I'm proud of that, but it's kind of hard to forget. i overflowed the core routers, summer '88. That was good for a flurry of chitchat between bbn (noc) and sri (nic) one afternoon. ebw
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Splintering the namespace is a convenient excuse that ICANN uses to engage in restraint of trade and excessive regulation. ICANN was never given the right to regulate entry into the industry, only to be a technical coordinator. Calling people kooks is a good way to get sued, but it doesn't add anything useful to the debate. - Original Message - From: Warren Kumari [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John Palmer (NANOG Acct) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 5:38 PM Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain On May 12, 2006, at 3:26 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: What are they talking about? .XXX already exists: No it doesn't, see below: dig ns xxx @g.LookMaICanAlsoSplinterTheNameSpace.com ; DiG 9.2.1 ns xxx @10.24.0.7 ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 3245 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;xxx. IN NS ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: . 86400 IN SOA Kook.LookMaICanAlsoSplinterTheNameSpace.com ;; Query time: 4 msec ;; SERVER: g.LookMaICanAlsoSplinterTheNameSpace.com#53(192.0.2.1) ;; WHEN: Fri May 12 15:34:17 2006 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 96 And this is exactly why there should be only 1 namespace. W %dig ns xxx @g.public-root.com ; DiG 9.3.2 ns xxx @g.public-root.com ; (1 server found) ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 65 ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;xxx. IN NS ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: xxx. 172800 IN NS eugene.kashpureff.org. xxx. 172800 IN NS ga.dnspros.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ga.dnspros.net. 172800 IN A 64.27.14.2 ;; Query time: 2 msec ;; SERVER: 199.5.157.131#53(199.5.157.131) ;; WHEN: Fri May 12 18:12:48 2006 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 100 Oh, sorry - you mean in the restricted USG root where ICANN actually has to approve new TLDs rather than just doing the technical coordination (the ONLY thing they were tasked to do in the first place). Freedom/Free Market Score: Inclusive Namespace: INFINITY, ICANN: ZERO Life is a concentration camp. You're stuck here and there's no way out and you can only rage impotently against your persecutors. -- Woody Allen
MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10may06.htm -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:46:40 -0400 From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ip@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] ICANN rejects .xxx domain Begin forwarded message: As reported in: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/print?id=1947950 ICANN has reversed their earlier preliminary approval, and has now rejected the dot-xxx adult materials top-level domain. I applaud this wise decision by ICANN, which should simultaneously please both anti-porn and free speech proponents, where opposition to the TLD has been intense, though for totally disparate reasons. Nick's AP piece referenced above notes that there are still Congressional efforts to mandate such a TLD. It is important to work toward ensuring that these do not gain traction. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, IOIC - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Why? If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there. william(at)elan.net wrote: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10may06.htm -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:46:40 -0400 From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ip@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] ICANN rejects .xxx domain Begin forwarded message: As reported in: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/print?id=1947950 ICANN has reversed their earlier preliminary approval, and has now rejected the dot-xxx adult materials top-level domain. I applaud this wise decision by ICANN, which should simultaneously please both anti-porn and free speech proponents, where opposition to the TLD has been intense, though for totally disparate reasons. Nick's AP piece referenced above notes that there are still Congressional efforts to mandate such a TLD. It is important to work toward ensuring that these do not gain traction. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, IOIC - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com -- Alain Hebert[EMAIL PROTECTED] PubNIX Inc. P.O. Box 175 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 5T7 tel 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netfax 514-990-9443
RE: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Why? If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there. Because once you separate them out, the government is free to slap a tax on .xxx websites. Geo.
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Well, It is always the same thing with this type of thread... Lets try to expand beyond the obvious shall we? Francisco Obispo wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Legislate where?..in the US ? in Canada ? Venezuela ? in Colombia? in Brazil ? . What is pornography ? on what basis? what religion ? what culture? regards. Alain Hebert wrote: Why? If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there. william(at)elan.net wrote: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10may06.htm -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:46:40 -0400 From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ip@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] ICANN rejects .xxx domain Begin forwarded message: As reported in: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/print?id=1947950 ICANN has reversed their earlier preliminary approval, and has now rejected the dot-xxx adult materials top-level domain. I applaud this wise decision by ICANN, which should simultaneously please both anti-porn and free speech proponents, where opposition to the TLD has been intense, though for totally disparate reasons. Nick's AP piece referenced above notes that there are still Congressional efforts to mandate such a TLD. It is important to work toward ensuring that these do not gain traction. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, IOIC - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com - -- ~~ Francisco Jose Obispo Semidey Jefe de Oficina de NIC-VE - NIC-VE Manager Centro Nacional de Tecnologias de Informacion - http://www.nic.ve Caracas - Venezuela -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEY3h8Gs0zZ5KMmSMRAji8AJ0TstiLyDMr5bmKQz96nC95lTFmswCfZTxQ aBzxmH7f2XEaTeNaJq6zSbs= =ovS1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Alain Hebert[EMAIL PROTECTED] PubNIX Inc. P.O. Box 175 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 5T7 tel 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netfax 514-990-9443
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 11 12:41:20 2006 Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:40:22 -0400 From: Alain Hebert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:46:40 -0400 From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ip@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] ICANN rejects .xxx domain Begin forwarded message: As reported in: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/print?id=1947950 ICANN has reversed their earlier preliminary approval, and has now rejected the dot-xxx adult materials top-level domain. I applaud this wise decision by ICANN, which should simultaneously please both anti-porn and free speech proponents, where opposition to the TLD has been intense, though for totally disparate reasons. Nick's AP piece referenced above notes that there are still Congressional efforts to mandate such a TLD. It is important to work toward ensuring that these do not gain traction. Why? If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there. And _that_ is *precisely* why not. grin When you figure out _how_ to accomplish the 'and' part of your statement, *world-wide*, and _how_long_ it would take to do so, *AND*CAN*GET*UNIVERSAL* *AGREEMENT* about what has to be inside the coral(sic), well, then, and -only- then can one consider 'what _useful_ purpose' such a TLD would serve. Note also: attempting to impose additional restrictions on _existant_, registered domains would likely constitute breach of contract. With big liabilities attached -- look at what the hijacking of 'sex.com' ended up costing the registrar that let it happen. Restricting future domain registrations _in_an_exsiting_TLD_ raises a separate can of worms, regarding existing registry operator and registrar contracts.
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:40:22 EDT, Alain Hebert said: If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there. The problem is that it's a TLD, not .xxx.us. What standard of porn do you intend to enforce? Remember there's places that have Internet where females are still supposed to keep their faces covered in public. Besides which, if we can corral them in it looks like a very implausible concept. RFC3675. pgpzV1Ay0WDoO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Thus spake Alain Hebert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why? If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there. And exactly which legislature has the authority to prevent porn sites registering in any other gTLD/ccTLD? S Stephen SprunkStupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them. --Aaron Sorkin
RE: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Also, who is to say what is offensive or dangerous to children? You don't seriously think that only pr0n would be forced into the .xxx TLD, do you? (Aactually, it's pretty funny that anyone in their right mind would expect this happen anyway.) I can also see cases where someone's blog get's relegated to the .xxx TLD because of a few colorful remarks or a use of the 'f' word... Not too much of a stretch to see abuses of this nature. - ferg -- Geo. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why? If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there. Because once you separate them out, the government is free to slap a tax on .xxx websites. Geo. -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:57:36 CDT, Robert Bonomi said: Note also: attempting to impose additional restrictions on _existant_, registered domains would likely constitute breach of contract. With big liabilities attached -- look at what the hijacking of 'sex.com' ended up costing the registrar that let it happen. So for those of us who tuned in late, when did it happen, when was the registrar assessed the costs of letting it happen, and what were those costs? And what effect did it have on other registrars to make them tighten up their procedures so they wouldn't be complicit in domain hijackings? pgpl2ZS0AgU6h.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort. the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial, as the cctlds cover that, and the authority, nominally, is a 501(c)(3) in marina del rey, and, purely contractual, as is the registry restricted to cooperative entities and the registry restricted to aviation entities. we are spared having to contest .xxx registrants who failed to meet the terms of the sponsored tld -- intolerably bland content.
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On Thu, 11 May 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:40:22 EDT, Alain Hebert said: If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there. The problem is that it's a TLD, not .xxx.us. What standard of porn do you intend to enforce? Remember there's places that have Internet where females are still supposed to keep their faces covered in public. Besides which, if we can corral them in it looks like a very implausible concept. RFC3675. Absolutly. I don't see how existing sites are ever going to accept having to move to address in particular domain (and pay 100x extra for it) or that there is any good way to force such rules across entire globe. That .xxx always seemed to me to be heavily ICANN-politics motivated with benefits primarily to those running new registry. Good that they finally come around to kill this thing. Although the bad thing is that some will make a case that it happened because USG told them to do so and as such push to replace ICANN with something that answers to ITU. Anyway, this is getting way OT for this list... -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
So ICANN did come to their senses finally and prevented another collission in balkan namespace :) ; DiG 9.1.3 -t any XXX @TLD2.NEWDOTNET.NET ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 34062 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;XXX. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: XXX.7200IN NS tld1.newdotnet.net. XXX.7200IN NS tld2.newdotnet.net. XXX.86400 IN SOA ns0.newdotnet.net. hostmaster.new.net. 1147374001 86400 300 1500 600 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: XXX.7200IN NS tld1.newdotnet.net. XXX.7200IN NS tld2.newdotnet.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: tld1.newdotnet.net. 604800 IN A 66.151.57.201 tld2.newdotnet.net. 604800 IN A 64.211.63.138 ;; Query time: 232 msec ;; SERVER: 64.211.63.138#53(TLD2.NEWDOTNET.NET) ;; WHEN: Thu May 11 21:40:08 2006 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 187 Thankyou ICANN for your continued support of alternative roots. Cheers Peter and Karin Dambier william(at)elan.net wrote: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10may06.htm -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:46:40 -0400 From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ip@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] ICANN rejects .xxx domain Begin forwarded message: As reported in: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/print?id=1947950 ICANN has reversed their earlier preliminary approval, and has now rejected the dot-xxx adult materials top-level domain. I applaud this wise decision by ICANN, which should simultaneously please both anti-porn and free speech proponents, where opposition to the TLD has been intense, though for totally disparate reasons. Nick's AP piece referenced above notes that there are still Congressional efforts to mandate such a TLD. It is important to work toward ensuring that these do not gain traction. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, IOIC - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 11, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Peter Dambier wrote: So ICANN did come to their senses finally and prevented another collission in balkan namespace :) Thankyou ICANN for your continued support of alternative roots. If you think *that's* why .XXX died, then I have a small bridge to sell you providing access to Manhattan island. Cheers, D -- Derek J. Balling Systems Administrator Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 13 - Computer Center 217 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 (845) 437-7231 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
At 2:43 PM -0400 05:11:2006, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort. the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial, Negative. 92% of the root is under US jurisdiction with most ccTLD's riding on that infrastructure. I'm in the process of analyzing that now. I'll let you know what the number comes out to, but I bet it's close. -M -- Martin Hannigan(c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation(w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On 5/11/06, Derek J. Balling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 11, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Peter Dambier wrote: So ICANN did come to their senses finally and prevented another collission in balkan namespace :) If you think *that's* why .XXX died, then I have a small bridge to sell you providing access to Manhattan island. I'll offer you advice once offered to me. Read the sign on the padded cell: Do not feed the troll. Peter's about 51 cards shy of a full deck when it comes to TLDs. I still have a back-of-my-head suspicion that he's a new alter ago of Jim Fleming. g -- -- Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Why? If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there. 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. DS
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
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 soo 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.
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall that we actually HAD a hostname file that we traded around...
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
At 11:42 PM 5/11/2006, Jim Popovitch wrote: 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 do we even need domain names at all outside our own entities for network management, mail,and a few minor services now that we have google? -M -- Martin Hannigan(c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation(w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED]
