_Guardian_ column: Why the .XXX would anyone want TLD for porn?

[Seth Finkelstein <sethf@xxxxxxxxx>]

Why the .xxx would anyone want a top-level domain for porn?

Seth Finkelstein

Thursday January 25, 2007
The Guardian

The idea of a ".xxx" web suffix for porn sites is the internet's
vampire: it seems nothing can kill it. Censors often oppose it because
they believe anything that can be construed as legitimisation of
pornography will hinder their efforts against it. Civil libertarians
oppose it on grounds such as the threat of it being used to
marginalise a wide range of material having to do with sexuality.
Adult webmasters widely view it with suspicion, as anyone who has a
ghettoisation scheme to "help" them usually isn't doing them a favour.

In fact, it is very difficult to find any lobbying group in favour
of .xxx, with one notable exception. Namely, a company called ICM
Registry, which would hand out .xxx site registrations, and would be
given a money-making machine. The .xxx vampire has risen again because
Icann, the organisation in charge of top-level domains, recently
revisited the question of whether it should approve it as a 
"Voluntary Adult Top-Level Domain".

Too much of the punditry about this consists of repeating clichés
about kids and red lights. But, leaving aside where one stands on
issues of censorship, the .xxx domain is a bad idea purely from a
business standpoint. To begin with, it provides no additional
technical value. Labelling schemes have been around for years, and
there already are systems that provide all .xxx could do. Putting such
a label into a domain extension accomplishes nothing useful and gives
the registry a monopoly.

Some people who support .xxx are apparently unaware of the long
history of rating and labelling, as shown by the fact that already
tried ideas are being reinvented, badly. (See, for example, the memo
".sex Considered Dangerous" - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt )

Furthermore, many sites that already exist would not want to switch
their names. If they already have a user base, why do anything which
could disrupt operations? If the new domain is truly voluntary, a
purchase would have to pass a cost-benefit analysis. But ICM Registry
still has a virtually guaranteed market. Three notable groups would
rush to purchase .xxx domains:

Corporations not associated with pornography who will want to
protect their trademarks. They will register their trademark names as
domains for defensive purposes - not because they want to put a site
on the domain, but so someone else cannot. This is a perpetual stream
of income for the registry, and at the planned price of $60 (£30) for
each domain, it will be a big chunk of money.

Domain-name speculators who will want to get common words for
potential resale value. These people don't want to run a site
themselves, they want to resell the name to others.

These first two groups are pure profit to the .xxx registry. Since
they aren't running sites themselves, there are no verification or
compliance costs associated in determining if the domains are
following registry policies.

Bona fide pornographers, who will register the .xxx domain names
corresponding to their existing .com domain names to avoid
speculators, or so a competitor doesn't do it to cause market
confusion, or as insurance in case some future law makes the .xxx
domain mandatory for their content. This is similar to the trademark
reason: it's defensive.

None of these registrations and associated registration revenue has
anything to do with protecting children. It's all about fear that
someone else will use the names, or greed to resell the names.
Essentially, whoever gets the .xxx registry is playing the above
groups against each other in a game of fear, uncertainty, and doubt -
and collecting a large fee no matter who wins.

And pointing to the amount of preregistration claims shouldn't be used
to imply that anybody actually wants the .xxx domain. Again,
speculators may want it, but not for a reason anyone else would
endorse. Surely, if everyone from civil libertarians and censors to
adult industry webmasters says .xxx is a bad idea then maybe we can
all agree it's a bad idea, and finally put a stake through its heart.


-- 
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer   http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php