that's a really nice sane article.
Posted by jessamyn at January 25, 2007 05:54 PMThere is one small part of your article, which has nothing to do with the main point of it, where I think you are not up with the times.
Over the last year there has been a huge shift away from speculators buying domains to sell and towards them trying to monetise their domains through Pay-Per-Click (PPC).
Sure, some people will buy .xxx names for resale but the rest of the domainers will be there for ongoing revenue potential of PPC. Given that so much Internet advertising is already based around adult services this is likely to be big business for .xxx.
Posted by Jay Daley at January 28, 2007 01:36 PMGreat article.
I've written a lot about this at my blog. The point you didn't make was there's no logical reason why a .xxx domain would work to protect children even in theory. Honest pornographers might use it (at massive personal expense, so they'll have to be very good indeed) and others won't. Then, with some people falsely secure in the knowledge that all the pon's in a .xxx ghetto it'll be open season for anyone less scrupulous to make a fortune selling sex on the more commonly accessed .com domains.
That's without saying what'll happen to obviously sexual domains. Will ICM registary put them in 'safe keeping'?
Search on .xxx at my site for more of my coverage of this.
Posted by Sam Sugar at January 30, 2007 09:11 AMjessamyn: Thanks.
Jay: Good point, but at $60 each, PPC may not be very cost-effective.
Sam: The idea is that it's a label. But if one favors labels, there are much better and more flexible ways to go about it.
Posted by Seth Finkelstein at January 30, 2007 02:15 PM