Talk:.xxx

Initial comments

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)

The Onion scooped us. It got rejected. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I always thought .xxx got rejected, and WON'T be used. Dan Leveille 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Click It has been rejected again, article needs to be re-wrote. Code E 13:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Done Stoneice02 14:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

==.sex== Is the .xxx TLD in any way related to the .sex scandal from a few years ago? --NEMT 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

¾ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.138.151 (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC) anup

4:08 AM 4/15/2012 Presently it appears that .xxx cost an enormous amount of money. On Godaddy it's $99.99 a year, while .com is $9.99. Discussion of impact should exist, but a quick google offered nothing. Obviously no small-time pornographer will pony up an extra $90.

May I suggest a screenshot of cnn.xxx which has a black background and the text "This domain has been reserved from registration. Copyright 2011 ICM Registry LLC"

Additionally, note that cryptome.xxx is an example of what is likely a "protest-type" use, likely to become more common as people believing filtering/censorship of access shouldn't be easy move their journalist-type sites to .xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.15.52 (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Approved, finally

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)

It's been at that point before. It hasn't happened until it has happened. bd2412 T 16:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

I have adjusted the copy appropriately. Those 'approval' stories certainly were premature! Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant opinions

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) The article should talk more about the risks involved with introducing a .xxx domain.

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)

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)

RFC 3675 considered essential

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)

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)

(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 RFC 3675. –89.204.137.163 (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing info the social conservative side of the debate over the .xxx domain

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)

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)

Categorisation

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)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:.xxx/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 00:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s). Please put your comments to the Discussion section below.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The case of the TLD should be consistent within article (exlcuding quotes and citations). As the major change in article's structure is required (see note 1b3), prose was not checked.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article suffers from overlinking. Eg., the reason for linking word "international" in organization's name in the lead is unclear. The Wikinews link points to the nonexistent page. The layout of the article is at least questionable: the Background section mixes the history with reception, the name of ICANN / ICM doesn't summarize the content. The external links seems to present the material that should be covered in the article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	In-line citations should follow the single style (in this case WP:CS1 per majority of citations). The works should be properly attributed; wikilinking of works should be consistent. The date format should also be consistent: the most common is YYYY-MM-DD, though MDY entries (including "NOvemberr 16,2011") also occur. The article overly relies on a primary source (ICANN). If possible, secondary sources should be provided. References #4-5, though may be seen as WP:NEWSBLOG, still would be better replaced by more reliable sources. Reference #6 should be better replaced with some less questionable source. Reference #7 is WP:SPS. Reference #18 is a Youtube video, which is not a reliable source. It still can be used with a lay summary from reliable source, indicating the authenticity of the video.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The first paragraph of the Background section
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article doesn't provide enough information about the actual usage of the TLD. Do the main pornographic content publishers use it? Did it affect the amount of pornographic content in other TLDs? Actually, the landrush started too recently for this article to cover the details, necessary for this criterion, so I doubt it can become a GA soon.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I don't think that the logo in the infobox indeed doesn't meet the threshold of originality.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a rather brief overview of problems. The real showstopper is the fact that not enough time have passed since the registration within this TLD became possible. As this event, which was vital for the article's topic, has already occurred, this article is supposed to inform readers of the impact, which is yet unknown.

These comments reflect the revision 476927480 of the article.

File:Xxx tld logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Xxx tld logo.jpg, 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 image page (File:Xxx tld logo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Squatting?

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)

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)

See also

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)

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)

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)

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)

Initial comments

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)

The Onion scooped us. It got rejected. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I always thought .xxx got rejected, and WON'T be used. Dan Leveille 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Click It has been rejected again, article needs to be re-wrote. Code E 13:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Done Stoneice02 14:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

==.sex== Is the .xxx TLD in any way related to the .sex scandal from a few years ago? --NEMT 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

¾ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.138.151 (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC) anup

4:08 AM 4/15/2012 Presently it appears that .xxx cost an enormous amount of money. On Godaddy it's $99.99 a year, while .com is $9.99. Discussion of impact should exist, but a quick google offered nothing. Obviously no small-time pornographer will pony up an extra $90.

May I suggest a screenshot of cnn.xxx which has a black background and the text "This domain has been reserved from registration. Copyright 2011 ICM Registry LLC"

Additionally, note that cryptome.xxx is an example of what is likely a "protest-type" use, likely to become more common as people believing filtering/censorship of access shouldn't be easy move their journalist-type sites to .xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.15.52 (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Approved, finally

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)

It's been at that point before. It hasn't happened until it has happened. bd2412 T 16:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

I have adjusted the copy appropriately. Those 'approval' stories certainly were premature! Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant opinions

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) The article should talk more about the risks involved with introducing a .xxx domain.

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)

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)

RFC 3675 considered essential

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)

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)

(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 RFC 3675. –89.204.137.163 (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing info the social conservative side of the debate over the .xxx domain

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)

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)

Categorisation

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)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:.xxx/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 00:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s). Please put your comments to the Discussion section below.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The case of the TLD should be consistent within article (exlcuding quotes and citations). As the major change in article's structure is required (see note 1b3), prose was not checked.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article suffers from overlinking. Eg., the reason for linking word "international" in organization's name in the lead is unclear. The Wikinews link points to the nonexistent page. The layout of the article is at least questionable: the Background section mixes the history with reception, the name of ICANN / ICM doesn't summarize the content. The external links seems to present the material that should be covered in the article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	In-line citations should follow the single style (in this case WP:CS1 per majority of citations). The works should be properly attributed; wikilinking of works should be consistent. The date format should also be consistent: the most common is YYYY-MM-DD, though MDY entries (including "NOvemberr 16,2011") also occur. The article overly relies on a primary source (ICANN). If possible, secondary sources should be provided. References #4-5, though may be seen as WP:NEWSBLOG, still would be better replaced by more reliable sources. Reference #6 should be better replaced with some less questionable source. Reference #7 is WP:SPS. Reference #18 is a Youtube video, which is not a reliable source. It still can be used with a lay summary from reliable source, indicating the authenticity of the video.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The first paragraph of the Background section
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article doesn't provide enough information about the actual usage of the TLD. Do the main pornographic content publishers use it? Did it affect the amount of pornographic content in other TLDs? Actually, the landrush started too recently for this article to cover the details, necessary for this criterion, so I doubt it can become a GA soon.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I don't think that the logo in the infobox indeed doesn't meet the threshold of originality.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a rather brief overview of problems. The real showstopper is the fact that not enough time have passed since the registration within this TLD became possible. As this event, which was vital for the article's topic, has already occurred, this article is supposed to inform readers of the impact, which is yet unknown.

These comments reflect the revision 476927480 of the article.

File:Xxx tld logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Xxx tld logo.jpg, 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 image page (File:Xxx tld logo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Squatting?

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)

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)

See also

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)

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)

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)

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)

".sex" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3 § .sex until a consensus is reached. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)