TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Two New Services Try to Warn You About Sleazy Sites

Re: Two New Services Try to Warn You About Sleazy Sites

Robert Bonomi (
Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:39:47 -0000

In article <>,
George Mitchell <> wrote:

> In an article from Monty Solomon, our Moderator wrote:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Programs like this, designed to protect
>> the average user seem like a good idea, considering how much of the
>> internet these days is porn or scam/spam in nature. Does anyone know
>> why ICANN has always steadfastly refused to consider top level domain
>> names of .spam , .scam , and .porn which would enable most users to
>> do a rather good job of filtering? PAT]

> Sure would, if the spammers, scammers, and pornsters would
> cooperatively run their operations from those top-level domains. But
> how many do you think would volutarily register there?

> George Mitchell

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Probably none of them would voluntarily
> move into the proper category. They'd probably have to be forced into
> the proper categories, i.e. if you want connectivity with the net,
> you need to be in (whatever) category. It happen that way now with the
> top level domains .edu , .mil and .gov . If you are not an EDUcational
> or a MILitary or GOVernment entity you do not get in those categories.
> Of course this would require some policing efforts by ICANN and its
> registrars. I am sure there would be a lot of wimpering and whining by
> some folks, but thats' life around the net. PAT]

You obviously fail to grasp the fundamental difference between
can't get in here unless you are ...." and "you must be in here if
you are ...."

Yes, you cannot get an '.edu' unless you are an educational
institution. *HOWEVER*, nothing _prevents_ an educational institution
from getting a name in another TLD, and many *do*.

Heck, even the U.S. ARMY uses .com domain names.

"In theory", things like '.scam', '.spam', or '.xxx' are a 'wonderful
idea'. In reality, however, due to the perverseness of human nature,
they are simply *unworkable*.

Among other 'minor' flaws with the idea is the simple fact that
providers don't ask 'what domain names will you be using' when they
sell connectivity. I've *never* seen an ISP contract that requires
you to notify the ISP if you start using different (or _additional_)

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Let me ask you this: _Why_ cannot I
get into the EDU or the MIL or GOV domains? Why cannot I insist
upon and recieve or as
my domain name? Would it be because the EDU/GOV/MIL registrars have
agreements among themselves to not admit me if I lack the required
credentials? Would it also be because the other _valid, bonafide_
occupants of those domain names would be likely to raise Holy Hell
if I were admitted without the proper credentials? Or more down to
earth possibly, _why_ cannot I be admitted on my own terms to the
.aero or .museum domains? Now with those questions in mind, tell
me _why_ I must be automatically admitted to the .org or .com or
.net domains, purely on my own say-so? Do any of these abilities to
be registered (or not) have any relevance to ICANN's wishes in the
matter? You mean I cannot just say I am an educational institution
and be taken at my word, or claim that "I am in charge of the Army
or Navy" and be accepted as such? Would ICANN and its various
registrar-agents look sort of askance at such a statement by myself?

Then _why_ are they so perfectly happy and willing to dump anyone
and everyone -- including all the trash in the world -- into the
domains known as .com and .net and .org (particularly .com)? I get so
tired of the wimpering and carrying-on about (1) 'how decisions such
as domain assignment are not the responsibility of ICANN (what a
lot of bologna!) and (2) 'we cannot dictate to other sites what
they can or cannot do with their sites' (more bologna, and possibly
even more insidious than even excuse (1) above. Of course we can
dictate! We do it all the time in the instances of .edu .mil and .gov
where one must at least come close to 'hitting the mark' in order to
being accepted therein.

I think it would really be hilarious if a class-action lawsuit was
started naming ICANN and its registrar-agents as the defendant, and
the general computer-using public as the plaintiff-class. The
complaint would be ICANN has misused its trust as the caretakers of
record of the net by allowing all the trash to be dumped into the
category .com, causing the general devaluation of the net by causing
effective filtering of undesireable material (you fill in the blanks
as desired; spam, scam, porn, etc) to be largely ineffectual,
especially when filtering could be so simple: .spam, .scam, .porn .
And listen to no more of their excuses; either reform the net in
general, or get out of the business and let others do it. I think
a class-action against ICANN would feel _so good_ don't you? I now
understand they are off on another one of their international vacation
trips at present; is it Morocco? PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: George Mitchell: "Re: (Ab)use of Javascript; was Re: Web Services Increasingly Under"
Go to Previous message: George Mitchell: "Re: Two New Services Try to Warn You About Sleazy Sites"
May be in reply to: Monty Solomon: "Two New Services Try to Warn You About Sleazy Sites"
Next in thread: Robert Bonomi: "Re: Two New Services Try to Warn You About Sleazy Sites"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page