David:
I gave the reasons for having an "ADU" TLD in my original note.Garry:
Your
reasoning is flawed.
David:
How?
David:
You think it ok for young
kids to view porn online?
Garry:
Do not be stupid. If you go to my Internet
mismanagement protest site, you will see I have been looking for the best solution.
I believe I found it. The authorities should have been doing something about this
problem, instead they think it more important to help big business.
David:
Sorry
for the misunderstanding. I have run into people who think it ok for kids to
have access to porn sites. I'm glad you're not one of them. What's the
URL for your "mismanagement" site?
David:
For example, serious discussions in
newsgroups shouldn't be overrun by hundreds of posts from children who want everyone
to know why some rock star is the greatest in the world.
Garry:
What you are
proposing is nothing more than extending .sex or .xxx to cover MOST newsgroups. Nearly
all newsgroups would be put in this catagory, on that criteria.
David:
No, it's
more than that. The TLDs you mention automatically denote sex or porn sites.
"ADU" doesn't do that. It simply says that this is a site or newsgroups where
kids aren't welcome.
David:
The important point is to have one which keeps kids
out of places they don't belong on the web.
Garry:
Agree 100 percent. I believe
the best way to do that is:
http://www.icann.org/cgi-bin/mbx/rpgmessage.cgi?newtlds;395323A1000001AA
David:
I have reviewed what you said there. It sounds like a NetNanny
approach which would require a lot of effort to maintain on an ongoing basis.
Plus, you'd run into problems with people disagreeing over whether a site should
be accessible to kids or not. The "ADU" designation lets sites determine for
themselves whether or not kids should be able to access them. However, since
there will be sites which won't go along, something like your approach is probably
going to be needed anyways. If so, then something like "ADU" can help simplify
your task.