Re: [ga] Re: The battle over .xxx again...

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 09:34 25/03/04, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 09:12:22PM -0800,
>  Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>  a message of 32 lines which said:
>
> >   Seems to me in the .xxx specific case, depending on how it is
> > handled, it would be a good idea to have such a sTLD.
>
> Read RFC 3675 ".sex Considered Dangerous" first.

Quite US and quite dogmatic as it is. Mostly advises PICS. Not
a bad idea. But probably not one which will fly in that state?

http://www.w3.org/PICS/
abstract:
What's New
- PICS Rating Vocabularies in XML/RDF (W3C NOTE 27 March 2000)
- Statement on Using PICS Well (1 June 1998)
- PICS Signed Labels (DSig) 1.0 Specification (27 May 1998)

But may be other simpler ways to make it, if consumer/market demand
is considered?

This could be a real topic for the GA.
Thank you for pointing it out.
jfc