- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 19:30:09 +0200
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Friday, April 30, 2004, 2:39:26 AM, Ian wrote: IBJ> 2.1 Top Level Domains used as filters (.xxx, .mobile, etc.) IBJ> 1. Action CL 2004/03/29: Send a draft to www-tag explaining why the IBJ> .mobile proposal is misinformed. If the TAG supports the proposal, IBJ> send to ICANN on the official mailing list ([15]Proposed) IBJ> 2. Action IJ 2004/03/29: Talk to DJW about sending a proposal to the IBJ> TAG (focusing on social issues) that the TAG could review and IBJ> possibly endorse. Progress; I chatted with DJW; haven't had IBJ> further discussion. Link for easy discussion with this agenda item: RFC 3675 .sex Considered Dangerous http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3675.txt Most of section 4 is applicable to the wider problem, not just the euphemistically named 'adult' problem. There is also a comment forum (closed since November 2000 about new tlds discussing .ads, .shop and so on http://forum.icann.org/tldapps/index.html Interesting message wondering whether ICANN (or indeed the US Govt.) "owns" all non-existent tlds and can sell them off to raise cash (argument in this posting is about .web) http://forum.icann.org/tldapps/39F6A5E400000A30.html More about the .web tld https://www.webtld.com/ " We've been busy while waiting for progress to be made in the implementation of new TLDs. Now that the progress appears to be on the horizon, it's time to roll out our innovations. Stay tuned - 2004 promises to be a busy and productive year!" I think the larger problem is this original ICANN decision to start minting new tlds and sell them off. .mobile and .sex are just individual instantiations of this; getting them stopped would just mean there would be a .phone or .handset or whatever a few months later. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Monday, 3 May 2004 13:30:09 UTC