Pat writes:
here:
formatting link
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'
Pat apparently does not know the author of RFC 3675.
-- Mark --
formatting link
does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, I do not know the author of that work. All I could find on my copy was a copyright notice from Internet Society. But one thing I noticed early on in my reading of that missive was that most of what he said about '.sex' or '.xxx' regards the way people could abuse those domain names could and has been done in equal measure with '.com', '.org', '.edu', and '.net'. That little factor -- that the author failed to include the rather well known TLDs in his discussion of how the system can be abused did nothing to impress me about the quality of his workmanship. It was almost as if the author had some other secret agenda he failed to mention. Nor was there any mention of those new arrivals '.biz', 'info', '.museum' and '.aero' and how _they_ could be (and have been, in their short lives) greatly abused. Apparently he feels it is okay to segregate dubious 'business' ventures, museums and airplane enthusiasts along with dubious 'information' providers into their own domains, rather than have them mainstreamed with others in .com, but he resents the idea that .sex or .xxx should thus be segregated. It really makes one wonder what his agenda is really all about. I don't really care _what_ the person's name is; I prefer to deal with ideas (which, in case you did not know it, have _consequences_) rather than possibly know who the person is and maybe have some prejudicial and unfair thoughts. So anyway, Mark, I have now read RFC-3675. Where does our conversation go from here? PAT]