ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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


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




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>