TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold

Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold

Mark Crispin (MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU)
Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:04:08 -0700

Pat writes:

> If local communities or governments decide what is to go into '.xxx' it
> would seem to me that all the fuss over effective and ineffective
> filtering would go away.


Please read RFC 3675 before commenting further on this subject.

-- Mark --
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To make it easy for readers to find
this _fascinating document_ that Mark refers to I am providing a link
here: sub-titled '.sex
considered dangerous', it is an interesting sermon-length document
which explains why the author has such hatred and bias against a TLD
known as '.sex' All the author's objections could likewise be applied
to '.com' or '.org' or '.edu' as well, and if a couple of guys here in
this mailing list are to be believed, '.org' is free to be (and I will
suggest, is) abused at present. A finer collection of red-herrings
you'll not find anywhere than those presented in RFC 3675. Thanks for
pointing it out, Mark. PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Economist Newspaper Group: "Opening Pandora's Inbox"
Go to Previous message: DevilsPGD: "Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold"
May be in reply to: News Wire: "Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold"
Next in thread: Mark Crispin: "Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page