Talk:.xxx

message: Shoudln't this be updated? .xxx is now in use. Saxsux 19:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
The article has been updated.  As a matter of fact, the official .xxx domain is not in use yet, and won't be for several months at the soonest.  Only New.net's hack is "in use" at this point.  All of which is explained in the article, I might add. Tverbeek 20:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Click It has been rejected again, article needs to be re-wrote. Code E 13:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Stoneice02 14:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial comments 

message: According to the BBC today .xxx will finally happen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/technology/10412765.stm Robirrelevant (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been at that point before. It hasn't happened until it has happened. bd2412 T 16:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As a board member of ICANN, I won't touch this article, but the actual resolution that the Board adopted is here. I think the New York Times describes it correctly as saying that the proposal has "moved forward".  --Alvestrand (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have adjusted the copy appropriately. Those 'approval' stories certainly were premature! Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approved, finally 

message: I think the whole idea of a separate .xxx domain is very risky. It would be easier for governments to ban the domain entirely. It's opening Pandora's box.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.145.211 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't specify what risks you are referring to. If you can find reliable sources documenting those that have been suggested by informed commentators then by all means they should go in the article. "It would be easier for governments to ban the domain entirely." Well, this is effectively the situation at present, given that .xxx does not exist at the time of writing and has not existed in the past. I'm not sure what you mean by "easier" and it's not clear that you fully understand that process of TLD approval or the implications of introducing .xxx. It need not, for example, increase the amount of pornographic content on the internet if that's what you're concerned about (that'll happen anyway!). The more pressing 'risks' are likely to be along the lines of ghettoising a part of the net, where we might end up with ISPs carrying everything but "xxx" sites or governments blocking the domain ("who legitimately wants access to that stuff?", they'll say), resulting in further breakdown of network neutrality and the landscape of the internet appearing differently depending on who provides your connection. This is what occurs to me when I consider the idea of this domain but, as I said, everything in Wikipedia needs to be documented elsewhere to meet the standard for inclusion. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Sorry, 182... If by "ban" you're referring to governments blocking connections to the domain (rather than preventing it coming into being) then I misunderstood you and we're coming at this from the same perspective I think! The bit about including information on risks with reference to reliable sources still stands of course. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant opinions

message: Having just read 2004's RFC 3675: .sex Considered Dangerous, I'm firmly of the opinion that the notable concerns raised there about the merits and feasibility of .sex, which has since morphed into .xxx, need to be outlined in this article. I say "notable" because RFCs are issued by people who know what they're talking about when it comes to the plumbing of the internet, and are not coming at this debate from a simplistic and irrelevant "is porn bad?" perspective as seen in some press coverage. I don't have the technical understanding to incorporate the RFC into the article in summary form without the possibility of misrepresenting it, but I'm sure there are many Wikipedia editors who could do the needful. Also, we need a redirect from .sex to this article, since the issues someone looking it up needs to hear about are the same: it is essentially the same proposal under a different name. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sometimes s/who know/who are supposed to know/, but this informational RFC was written by an expert in the field.  It says that using a TLD to tag content won't work as expected -- if you'd expect say all "museum" topics in .museum, and vice versa, or all German content in .at/.ch/.de, and vice versa.  The ICANN folks were certainly aware of this RFC, and have no unrealistic expectations for .xxx.  The folks trying to get this TLD might have "too optimistic" expectations for their business, but followed the ICANN rules incl. considerable fees.  You could say the rules were wrong to start with, but you'd have a hard time to justify this opinion solely based on this RFC. –89.204.153.230 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

text: (Same unregistered user as above) BTW, if you expect that web pages on servers with a domain in the .mobi TLD are supposed to work on smartphones, and if that works for you (I can't judge it), then this would constitute a counter-example for . –89.204.137.163 (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{IETF RFC|3675}} considered essential 

message: Shouldn't the article include the arguments over the creation of the domain including opposition from social conservatives and anti-porn feminist as well as from governments such as the Obama administration. Also missing is the the response from certain governments over it's creation such as Indian promising to block the .xxx domain country-wide. --Cab88 (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe the 'Background' section - essentially a synthesis of arguments pro and con - could be improved. There were arguments against not only from social conservatives, but also progressives fearing censorship implications. But it should be kept brief, and well reffed. If you want to start a 'Reactions' section with the Indian government response, I think that would be quite acceptable. Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing info the social conservative side of the debate over the .xxx domain 

message: I see this page is categorised only in the porn categories, not in any technology or Internet categories. I'm not very familiar with how categorisation works on Wikipedia, but surely an article about a gTLD should have some computing categories applied?
TRiG (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's categorized as a Sponsored Top Level Domain, that should be sufficient. I've removed "proposed" as it's beyond that stage. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorisation 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Xxx tld logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Is it worth having a section on "preventive domain squatting", whereby addresses like "vatican.xxx" are purchased specifically to present them being misused? DS (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have a good source treating this as a wider issue (rather than the single vatican thing I know of); why not! L.tak (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squatting? 

message: I don't understand the link under see also... What does this have to do with Operation Choke Point? Nulbyte (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also miss the point why an agency of a single country should be there. Anyone any clues? Otherwise I'll remove it. L.tak (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Becuase choke point was directed against the porn industry in the US, and a Vice News interview with Stoya says that her contract with Manwin made her a target to lose her bank account. ICANN is officially independent of government - but Bush hated .xxx (see cnet fox internetgovernance). These may have been whitewashed from this article by ICM's COI editors paid to whitewash religious opposition they fought - but it happened - and Obama did the same thing. Also, india has blocked ICM registered domains, and that's why the FSC fought it. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying that. It seems a great news story from a single agency in a single country, but not enough for a see also mention imo... L.tak (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: Vhjbvcc 27.55.79.40 (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guhdgjj 

message: Shoudln't this be updated? .xxx is now in use. Saxsux 19:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
The article has been updated.  As a matter of fact, the official .xxx domain is not in use yet, and won't be for several months at the soonest.  Only New.net's hack is "in use" at this point.  All of which is explained in the article, I might add. Tverbeek 20:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Click It has been rejected again, article needs to be re-wrote. Code E 13:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Stoneice02 14:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial comments 

message: According to the BBC today .xxx will finally happen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/technology/10412765.stm Robirrelevant (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been at that point before. It hasn't happened until it has happened. bd2412 T 16:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As a board member of ICANN, I won't touch this article, but the actual resolution that the Board adopted is here. I think the New York Times describes it correctly as saying that the proposal has "moved forward".  --Alvestrand (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have adjusted the copy appropriately. Those 'approval' stories certainly were premature! Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approved, finally 

message: I think the whole idea of a separate .xxx domain is very risky. It would be easier for governments to ban the domain entirely. It's opening Pandora's box.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.145.211 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't specify what risks you are referring to. If you can find reliable sources documenting those that have been suggested by informed commentators then by all means they should go in the article. "It would be easier for governments to ban the domain entirely." Well, this is effectively the situation at present, given that .xxx does not exist at the time of writing and has not existed in the past. I'm not sure what you mean by "easier" and it's not clear that you fully understand that process of TLD approval or the implications of introducing .xxx. It need not, for example, increase the amount of pornographic content on the internet if that's what you're concerned about (that'll happen anyway!). The more pressing 'risks' are likely to be along the lines of ghettoising a part of the net, where we might end up with ISPs carrying everything but "xxx" sites or governments blocking the domain ("who legitimately wants access to that stuff?", they'll say), resulting in further breakdown of network neutrality and the landscape of the internet appearing differently depending on who provides your connection. This is what occurs to me when I consider the idea of this domain but, as I said, everything in Wikipedia needs to be documented elsewhere to meet the standard for inclusion. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Sorry, 182... If by "ban" you're referring to governments blocking connections to the domain (rather than preventing it coming into being) then I misunderstood you and we're coming at this from the same perspective I think! The bit about including information on risks with reference to reliable sources still stands of course. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant opinions

message: Having just read 2004's RFC 3675: .sex Considered Dangerous, I'm firmly of the opinion that the notable concerns raised there about the merits and feasibility of .sex, which has since morphed into .xxx, need to be outlined in this article. I say "notable" because RFCs are issued by people who know what they're talking about when it comes to the plumbing of the internet, and are not coming at this debate from a simplistic and irrelevant "is porn bad?" perspective as seen in some press coverage. I don't have the technical understanding to incorporate the RFC into the article in summary form without the possibility of misrepresenting it, but I'm sure there are many Wikipedia editors who could do the needful. Also, we need a redirect from .sex to this article, since the issues someone looking it up needs to hear about are the same: it is essentially the same proposal under a different name. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sometimes s/who know/who are supposed to know/, but this informational RFC was written by an expert in the field.  It says that using a TLD to tag content won't work as expected -- if you'd expect say all "museum" topics in .museum, and vice versa, or all German content in .at/.ch/.de, and vice versa.  The ICANN folks were certainly aware of this RFC, and have no unrealistic expectations for .xxx.  The folks trying to get this TLD might have "too optimistic" expectations for their business, but followed the ICANN rules incl. considerable fees.  You could say the rules were wrong to start with, but you'd have a hard time to justify this opinion solely based on this RFC. –89.204.153.230 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

text: (Same unregistered user as above) BTW, if you expect that web pages on servers with a domain in the .mobi TLD are supposed to work on smartphones, and if that works for you (I can't judge it), then this would constitute a counter-example for . –89.204.137.163 (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{IETF RFC|3675}} considered essential 

message: Shouldn't the article include the arguments over the creation of the domain including opposition from social conservatives and anti-porn feminist as well as from governments such as the Obama administration. Also missing is the the response from certain governments over it's creation such as Indian promising to block the .xxx domain country-wide. --Cab88 (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe the 'Background' section - essentially a synthesis of arguments pro and con - could be improved. There were arguments against not only from social conservatives, but also progressives fearing censorship implications. But it should be kept brief, and well reffed. If you want to start a 'Reactions' section with the Indian government response, I think that would be quite acceptable. Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing info the social conservative side of the debate over the .xxx domain 

message: I see this page is categorised only in the porn categories, not in any technology or Internet categories. I'm not very familiar with how categorisation works on Wikipedia, but surely an article about a gTLD should have some computing categories applied?
TRiG (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's categorized as a Sponsored Top Level Domain, that should be sufficient. I've removed "proposed" as it's beyond that stage. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorisation 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Xxx tld logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Is it worth having a section on "preventive domain squatting", whereby addresses like "vatican.xxx" are purchased specifically to present them being misused? DS (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have a good source treating this as a wider issue (rather than the single vatican thing I know of); why not! L.tak (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squatting? 

message: I don't understand the link under see also... What does this have to do with Operation Choke Point? Nulbyte (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also miss the point why an agency of a single country should be there. Anyone any clues? Otherwise I'll remove it. L.tak (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Becuase choke point was directed against the porn industry in the US, and a Vice News interview with Stoya says that her contract with Manwin made her a target to lose her bank account. ICANN is officially independent of government - but Bush hated .xxx (see cnet fox internetgovernance). These may have been whitewashed from this article by ICM's COI editors paid to whitewash religious opposition they fought - but it happened - and Obama did the same thing. Also, india has blocked ICM registered domains, and that's why the FSC fought it. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying that. It seems a great news story from a single agency in a single country, but not enough for a see also mention imo... L.tak (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: The redirect .sex has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:.sex]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]