<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Domains &#8211; Have They Lost Their Way?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.dpscomputing.com/blog/2012/07/11/domains-have-they-lost-their-way/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.dpscomputing.com/blog/2012/07/11/domains-have-they-lost-their-way/</link>
	<description>Your Ultimate Computing Website!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:27:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: DPS David		</title>
		<link>https://www.dpscomputing.com/blog/2012/07/11/domains-have-they-lost-their-way/comment-page-1/#comment-599</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DPS David]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:27:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dpscomputing.com/wordpress/?p=1245#comment-599</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thank you Ben.  Well yes, it would of course be hard to regulate theoretical domains such as &#039;.tech&#039;.  One real proposal that was for &#039;.berlin&#039; - for Berliners.  Now this did seem a little OTT, but the group proposing it said it would help the community.  However, I think we&#039;ve got to be careful not to get as many TLDs as we have domains - that would just make them useless.  

Yes, there&#039;d be inherent problems trying to regulate these new TLD&#039;s - they&#039;ll have to have a long and hard think prior to implementation.  

Even ones which seem clear cut may not be so.  For example, most supporters for the &#039;.xxx&#039; TLD would say that is easy to implement - adult content on .xxx, non adult content everywhere else.  

But, have they considered the following points?  

1.  Who defines what adult content is?  Obviously, pornography is adult content in most peoples books.  But what about &#039;glamour models&#039; and &#039;lads mags&#039; - would / should they be on a .xxx?  Or are they OK to be not classed as adult content?  There are vastly differing views on this.  

2.  What about adult sites currently with .com&#039;s or .co.uk&#039;s or any other TLD.  They might not want to move their content to a .xxx domain.  What&#039;s going to happen then?  You can&#039;t take the domain off them any more than a .com can be taken from an individual or a .me.uk taken from a company.  

It&#039;s a very interesting and complex situation which I think ICANN needs to devote time and resources into investigating.  With many pending TLD and ccTLD registrations in the pipeline I think it&#039;s important for them to address this issue before they introduce any more TLD&#039;s and ccTLD&#039;s and thereby introduce more problems :).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you Ben.  Well yes, it would of course be hard to regulate theoretical domains such as &#8216;.tech&#8217;.  One real proposal that was for &#8216;.berlin&#8217; &#8211; for Berliners.  Now this did seem a little OTT, but the group proposing it said it would help the community.  However, I think we&#8217;ve got to be careful not to get as many TLDs as we have domains &#8211; that would just make them useless.  </p>
<p>Yes, there&#8217;d be inherent problems trying to regulate these new TLD&#8217;s &#8211; they&#8217;ll have to have a long and hard think prior to implementation.  </p>
<p>Even ones which seem clear cut may not be so.  For example, most supporters for the &#8216;.xxx&#8217; TLD would say that is easy to implement &#8211; adult content on .xxx, non adult content everywhere else.  </p>
<p>But, have they considered the following points?  </p>
<p>1.  Who defines what adult content is?  Obviously, pornography is adult content in most peoples books.  But what about &#8216;glamour models&#8217; and &#8216;lads mags&#8217; &#8211; would / should they be on a .xxx?  Or are they OK to be not classed as adult content?  There are vastly differing views on this.  </p>
<p>2.  What about adult sites currently with .com&#8217;s or .co.uk&#8217;s or any other TLD.  They might not want to move their content to a .xxx domain.  What&#8217;s going to happen then?  You can&#8217;t take the domain off them any more than a .com can be taken from an individual or a .me.uk taken from a company.  </p>
<p>It&#8217;s a very interesting and complex situation which I think ICANN needs to devote time and resources into investigating.  With many pending TLD and ccTLD registrations in the pipeline I think it&#8217;s important for them to address this issue before they introduce any more TLD&#8217;s and ccTLD&#8217;s and thereby introduce more problems :).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ben Stones		</title>
		<link>https://www.dpscomputing.com/blog/2012/07/11/domains-have-they-lost-their-way/comment-page-1/#comment-595</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Stones]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:59:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dpscomputing.com/wordpress/?p=1245#comment-595</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Good article. I agree. But how are you going to regulate &quot;.tech&quot; domains, if such a domain will exist (and heck, it could with the ICANN domain name system). I mean, you can&#039;t just take down domains because someone hasn&#039;t, a) got their site up properly yet, b) hasn&#039;t got &quot;tech&quot;-oriented content. It&#039;s difficult. But for .eng, .scot and .cymru, I agree - it&#039;s easy to regulate these domains by restricting registration to UK citizens because if you tell them and warn them prior to registration &quot;if you&#039;re not a legal resident of the UK your domain may be taken off you&quot;, they&#039;ve been given notice beforehand and I think that&#039;s reasonable.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good article. I agree. But how are you going to regulate &#8220;.tech&#8221; domains, if such a domain will exist (and heck, it could with the ICANN domain name system). I mean, you can&#8217;t just take down domains because someone hasn&#8217;t, a) got their site up properly yet, b) hasn&#8217;t got &#8220;tech&#8221;-oriented content. It&#8217;s difficult. But for .eng, .scot and .cymru, I agree &#8211; it&#8217;s easy to regulate these domains by restricting registration to UK citizens because if you tell them and warn them prior to registration &#8220;if you&#8217;re not a legal resident of the UK your domain may be taken off you&#8221;, they&#8217;ve been given notice beforehand and I think that&#8217;s reasonable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/?utm_source=w3tc&utm_medium=footer_comment&utm_campaign=free_plugin

Page Caching using Disk: Enhanced 
Minified using Disk

Served from: www.dpscomputing.com @ 2026-06-09 11:00:26 by W3 Total Cache
-->