
XXX TLD Officially Open - necenzurat
http://www.about.xxx/launch/
======
Adaptive
I actually find this structured approach to be quite interesting, despite the
cynical, money-minting glee with which it will no doubt be executed. How far
the industry has come since the days of faxing in my passport to register a
.com.

Allow me to translate, for those that were lulled into a hypnotic trance by
the Patrick Stewart sound alike:

 _Sunrise A:_ Additional adult domain cost! Your existing domain strategy just
got more expensive to maintain unless you want your SEO to get nuked.

 _Sunrise B:_ Brand Blackmail, early period. Otherwise known as "That's a nice
non-adult themed brand you have, it would terrible to see something happen to
it."

 _Landrush:_ Laughing all the way to the bank. 18 days? Try 18 hours.

 _General Availability:_ Gone, all the good names are.

~~~
MartinCron
_Sunrise B: Brand Blackmail, early period_

For what it's worth, it looks like the Sunrise B is for blocking/making it
impossible to register .xxx domains with your registered trademark such as
MarthaStewart.xxx instead of having to pay to register (and presumably not
use) MarthaStewart.xxx

If any other TLDs work this way, I don't know of them.

~~~
robtoo
The fee for Sunrise B appears to be almost the same as the annual fee for
actually registering. I assume you won't have to renew, though.

~~~
16s
It is a one-time fee. About 200 dollars. godaddy has the lowest price that
I've seen (199.00). I think it's a smart idea (if you own a _registered
trademark_ ) as 200 dollars is a lot cheaper than getting attorneys to go
after trademark violators... even if it's a guaranteed win. Registered
trademarks carry a lot of legal protection and someone would have to be nuts
to try and build a porn website using a _registered trademark_ that they did
not own. No legit company would do that as their lawyers should catch it and
realize the potential financial doom.

------
andrewvc
Regardless of your opinion of adult content, this stuff makes far less
practical sense than things like RTA labeling <http://www.rtalabel.org/>. All
that RTA requires is a simple meta tag, and it's free.

Content filters abide by it, and it doesn't disrupt existing business.

.xxx is just an effort to make money with another new TLD. It doesn't make the
web safer and it doesn't make content-filters simpler or more accurate.

Since no one is proposing _forcing_ sites to use .xxx, those concerned with
truly making the web safer should really be looking for the most effective way
to get wide penetration of a labeling solution, and a meta tag is about as
simple as simple gets.

~~~
joe_the_user
_Since no one is proposing forcing sites to use .xxx,_

No one has to propose it openly since the threat is implicit. Regardless of
what is said at the moment of creation of the domain, all that a would-be
censor has to do is wait [Internet-memory-erasure-period] and say "hey, we
created XXX because all the porn is supposed to only be here" and _viola_.

~~~
prawn
Just quietly: voilà. A viola is an instrument.

~~~
brianobush
most people don't know how to quickly type: à

~~~
sjwright
Mac OS: Option-`, a = à.

Windows: Alt-0-2-2-4 = à. Go Microsoft!

~~~
xpaulbettsx
Mac OS X Lion: Hold a.

------
jackpirate
The consensus seems that the .XXX TLD is just a money grab because it's not
forcing adult content onto this TLD, and there is no practical way to even do
that.

Therefore, wouldn't a counterpart TLD, such as .SAFE, actually make more
sense? Companies that target children, such as Walt Disney, could provide a
guaranteed safe sub-internet. With wikipedia's new filtering options, they
could put a wiki-subset on .SAFE with maximum filtering on.

It would be hugely costly to police, and so probably the most expensive TLD
ever. But some companies would surely still be able to profit.

~~~
mmatants
Agree re: cash grab.

The counterpart "safe" TLD is part of a much bigger content curation problem
that is evolving in the Internet. Some parents out there are not at all OK
with Disney content, even, some will want to leave boobs in but head-crushing
out, etc, etc. Properly tailoring to people's many shades of content filtering
seems like a job for dedicated browser-recognized crypto certificate chains.

This way, different consumers can directly delegate trust to a custom choice
of entities that already are engaged in this space (e.g. all the "family
focus" agencies), instead of fighting over a centralized TLD committee.

~~~
MarkPilgrim
> seems like a job for dedicated browser-recognized crypto certificate chains

You don't read the news much, do you? ;)

~~~
aangjie
Apparently neither do i. Can you throw some light on what you are referring
to?

~~~
waitwhat
I assume Mark is refering to the DigiNotar hack (and earlier Comodo ones) and
the ensuing shit-storm which showed what an awful security model the current
CA/certificate system really is.

------
waitwhat
Ah yes, .xxx -- a solution to a problem that absolutely nobody had other than
wannabe-censors.

~~~
veyron
how about whitehouse.com? Quite a few kids stumbled into the world of porn
through that domain

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse.com>

~~~
waitwhat
What about it indeed? .xxx doesn't solve that problem unless you forbid porn
on every other domain.

In other words: .xxx really is a solution only for wannabe-censors.

~~~
veyron
" .xxx doesn't solve that problem unless you forbid porn on every other
domain"

That is a perfectly plausible solution now that the .xxx TLD exists.

~~~
pak
Are you joking?

1\. Define "porn"

2\. Get every other TLD operator, including all the international ones, on
board with your definition and rules (e.g. are we only banning websites on
port 80, or would FTP sites also be verboten? password-protected sites? is
classical art exempt?)

3\. Enforce the censorship via some kind of magical system that is automated,
doesn't trigger false positives, and allows for an appeal process

Yeah, that'll be a snap to put together.

~~~
DavidSJ
Don't forget:

0\. Repeal the First Amendment.

~~~
waitwhat
There _are_ other countries...

~~~
sjwright
No no, the United States constitution is a worldwide law. We invented freedom,
and we invented English!

------
lowglow
I feel desensitized by the countless number of TLDs that have come out
recently. I guess I should be excited by .XXX, but I just am not.

~~~
kijeda
Not quite countless. There are 307 TLDs today, up from about 250 a decade ago.
Most of this growth as been in non-Latin IDN domains (There are 21 gTLDs
today, including .XXX)

There will however be a sea change in the future, ICANN is intending the open
up applications for new gTLDs in 2012 that could see hundreds more TLDs added.
So if adding the dozen or so new gTLDs in the last 10 years has seemed
countless, it will get worse.

~~~
meric
Is it so bad? It'll get easier to find the name you want as a domain....
[http://<mydomain>.<tld>](http://<mydomain>.<tld>);

If anything, so many tlds would devalue the existing .coms, .net, .org... if
only slightly.

~~~
bobds
I think more and more people will rely on Google for navigational queries.

"Hey you should really check out this awesomestuff.sfdj website"

"I'll look at it when I get home."

... later in the day:

"Hmmm was it awesomestuff.com or awesomestuff.me ..."

"Let's ask Google for a link to awesomestuff"

~~~
qxb
I agree. I think a lot of people do this already, and not just for sites where
they can't remember the exact URL. It's often just as quick to type 'bbc' or
'facebook' into the Google search bar, especially if Google is your homepage.
You don't have to worry about typos, either. Some computer users I know, older
users, access everything that way. When I asked one why, she replied that she
found the browser address bar "fiddly".

Earlier this year Bing stated that "about 30%" of search queries are
navigational.[1]

[1]
[http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/20...](http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2011/02/10/making-
search-yours.aspx) (paragraph before penultimate screenshot)

------
Sephr
It's only a matter of time before someone pays the ICM Registry for on A
record on XXX. so they can have <http://xxx/>

~~~
ashconnor
For $85,000 though. Makes .xxx look cheap.

~~~
Sephr
The initial $185k USD fee is for TLDs, not DNS records on already existing
TLDs.

------
joezydeco
Can I get xxx.xxx and then subdomain it out to my heart's content to anyone
that wants to pay?

Martha Stewart can pay under Sunrise B to stop marthastewart.xxx, but can she
stop marthastewart.xxx.xxx?

~~~
sdkmvx
She can sue for trademark infringement via normal channels (courts) for both
of those, even if she has not registered marthastewart.xxx.

------
0x12
The temptation to put a useful, non-porn site on a subdomain of .xxx is quite
large. Just to make the point that .xxx is useless _and_ for the large number
of clicks that it will no doubt bring.

Elementary programming course on 'thesecretcode.xxx'. Legions of porn seeking
people converted to programmers, if slashdot is any indication that should be
a perfect match.

------
TomGullen
I want to register "fffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaxxxxxxx.xxx" and it can be a place people
can send faxes online from

------
jmtame
There's something difficult about saying "hey go to mypornsite dot x-x-x",
it's 3 syllables over the conventional "dot com", "dot net" or "dot org."

~~~
cryptoz
www has _three times_ as many syllables as 'world wide web', yet somehow it
caught on.

~~~
xtacy
Just curious; how often have you heard dub-dub-dub for www?

~~~
markng
I use that all the time, but the only other person I've heard say it is the
person I picked the habit up from.

------
guelo
ICANN is a corrupt undemocratic non-representative self-important parasite on
the internet who's main concern is increasing their budget so they can
schedule more of their all expense paid meetings in Puerto Rico or Costa Rica.

That is all.

------
WestCoastJustin
Feel like I'm going to get in trouble checking this out at work ;) All anyone
has to do now it filter by .xxx

~~~
burgerbrain
What really needs to happen now is for lots of people to start registering
domains for (preferably high profile) non-adult content websites.

Water down the domain so it no longer means much, so filtering by it becomes
destructive.

~~~
waitwhat
Nice try, ICM Registry! (Domains are $200 p.a.)

~~~
burgerbrain
That's not all that bad, all things considered. I probably spend more on
breakfast cereal.

------
T_S_
Hard to see what all the excitement is about while xxx.ly is still available.

------
p4bl0
So, who's gonna get lambdax.xxx ;-) ?

~~~
jarin
I can think of a ton of great domains, but at $250 or so a pop (including
taxes) that's probably not going to happen.

Nobody I know in the adult industry is rushing to register anything either
(except a few who are doing it purely as a defensive measure and don't plan to
actually use it).

~~~
meric
You're the first person I know that knows someone in the adult industry... :)

~~~
jarin
I still (sort of) work in the adult industry :)

I worked at a big porn company a few years ago, and I do consulting for a porn
startup now. I have other clients too, but it's a pretty fun industry to work
in (fun parties, lots of great scaling challenges, etc).

------
celalo
how do they make these intro videos?
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIDKnDSaWqE> Does this technique have a name?
Are there any special tools for that?

~~~
morrow
I believe the name for that is kinetic type:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_typography> I'm not aware of any
specialized tools, I've heard of using illustrator and after effects, however.

~~~
celalo
thank you, that was very helpful.

------
sampsonjs
Since the MPAA got rid of the X rating, I'm glad we have this. Now the phrase
"Triple X" won't become obsolete.

