This is somewhere between a rant and a stream of conciousness,… - Sally's Journal
|Date:||November 29th, 2005 02:48 pm (UTC)|| |
You proposal is entirely unworkable, because no one would find a definition of what porn is that everyone would agree on. The US government couldn't arbitrarily make such a definition as they would at the least need their own populace to agree, which would be extremely hard.
The only reason alternate roots and so on have not occured is that no one has done anything that would upset the seperate governments, so yes something would happen.
This is all entirely ridiculous because as I said there is no good definition of what pornography is.
|Date:||November 29th, 2005 03:12 pm (UTC)|| |
1) The US governemnt does make decisions and definitions (eg. US Code: Title 18,2256
) which many of their own populace disagree with. That's their job - they are the populace's democratically elected representatives. Just because there are people who will disagree with a definition is not an arguement against making a definition.
2) If the ICANN where to make a .xxx domain could you really imagine any foreign politician getting up and saying: "we are going to switch to a different root server, and cause great confusion for all internet users in our country, because we want you to be able to browse porn in .com domains".
2b) Some government are quite upset. I was in France on holiday recently, and the second headline (below the rioting) was all about the US refusing to give up control of the internet from ICANN to a UN controlled organisation. Their not setting up their own root servers.
|Date:||November 29th, 2005 03:19 pm (UTC)|| |
1) Definitions are made obviously whenever a legal document is drafted. The one you linked to what about the sexual exploitation of children, there would be fairly widespread agreement that that needs to be made illegal and so good support for it. This is simply not the case with pornography. As I've pointed out before you're not understanding the difference between the theoretical and real political power the US has over the DNS system.
2) "we are going to switch to a different root server, and cause great confusion for all internet users in our country, because we want you to be able to browse porn in .com domains".
Except that it wouldn't cause any confusion. The plans to run additional name servers would mirror entries from the root servers for at least a time. It's entirely possible to run a more decentralised root system, and the only real reason it hasn't happened yet is because there has been no compelling reason to do so - so far the US hasn't done anything that would particularly upset people.
2b) Yeah I was following that in some detail. Personally I think the press blew it up both in Europe and the US to be a lot larger than it was (well they certainly didn't accurately report what the effects were). If America did upset everyone at once with something like this we could switch to our own root system.
|Date:||November 29th, 2005 03:32 pm (UTC)|| |
Why do you think introducing an ".xxx" domain is going to upset everyone? Or bother anyone enough do create an alternative. As you observe further down this thread, you're not bothered to do anything about this law, so what makes you think you and others would suddenly start lobbying government for porn in ".com".
Also I honestly cannot imagine any public figure in any position of power who would support such a move. And likewise, I cannot imagine a mass public uprising to campaing for porn in ".com". Whereas I can imagine lots of people who want a coherent internet naming system, and being in favour of the status quo because "it works".
|Date:||November 29th, 2005 03:49 pm (UTC)|| |
I think it would upset people because it would require both commercial and non commercial organisations and people to have to waste huge amounts of time and money determining what content is and isn't pornographic, registering new domains, moving it around, updating all their corporate urls (if used for advertising) and so on. Not to mention that it would require large international agreements to achieve.
This law doesn't affect me and so I'm not moving to do anything about it - but the cost to industry would be large and I like many people like and use pornography whereas only a minority use 'extreme pornography'. So there is a big difference.
I never said there would be a public uprising for porn in .com, the point is it's there, it isn't broke and it doesn't need fixing.
As other people have pointed out if you're going to start categorising pornography because it requires it then why not other things like violence, or cheese? As it happens there are already systems that could take care of this (e.g. ICRA's PIC system), polluting the name space with .xxx or .violence or .blasphemy, or whatever people might find offensive would IMO not be a good solution.
|Date:||November 29th, 2005 04:18 pm (UTC)|| |
My guess is that the US right would prefer there to be no pornography at all, and are starting at the far end in order to be able to say "all right-thinking people agree with us". I'd be quite surprised if they got this through and then said "thus far and no further"; I think they'd say look that was easy, which bit shall we go for next?
|Date:||November 29th, 2005 04:21 pm (UTC)|| |
It's the religious Christian right that are the risk. The USA seems to be the main western exporter of pornography.
|Date:||November 29th, 2005 04:22 pm (UTC)|| |
Oh and yes - I agree with you. The strategy here is to start at one end and move to the other.
|Date:||November 29th, 2005 04:35 pm (UTC)|| |
Also, I think there would be serious complaints from OFCOM and Nominet about the US telling them what policy to enforce in .uk. Imagine some racy BBC article being declared porn and USDOC saying "either take it down or move the BBC to .xxx".
|Date:||November 29th, 2005 03:15 pm (UTC)|| |
(as an aside, rhetoric like "entirely ridiculous" and "stupid ideas" does not usually make for good debate. Well, conclusive debate, at any rate.)
Oh, it's *conclusive* - just not terribly useful.