backtop


Print 18 comment(s) - last by jtesoro.. on May 31 at 9:09 AM

Dot-mobi will be the first domain suffix created specifically to cater to mobile devices

Since ICANN believes we do not have enough top level domains (TLDs), we will soon have the grace of .MOBI upon us.   The new TLD will serve the purpose of guiding mobile users to made-for-mobile content formatted especially for mobile devices. As of right now, trademark holders in the mobile industry are allowed to register. General trademark holders can begin registering their trademarks on June 12 and the domain doors will be opened to the public for registration on August 28.   

The fact that not all web sites are optimized for mobile users makes parts of the Internet relatively inaccessible to mobile devices. This is where .MOBI makes sense by identifying clearly mobile-friendly Internet services. Despite the widespread adoption of mobile devices, the constantly changing data capabilities of these devices and standards can slow down its acceptance and make developing generalized services for mobile users a difficult proposition. However, ICANN has no stipulations on the .MOBI TLD, meaning the purchaser does not require WAP or light CSS support.

ICANN just approved the .TEL top level domain a few days ago, and the .EU TLD had its general availability launch last month.  However, even in this spree of additional TLDs, ICANN continues to reject the .XXX TLD proposals



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

ug
By ksherman on 5/23/2006 6:47:05 PM , Rating: 3
I get a bit annoyed everytime I hear of these new domain extensions... why? because they keep rejecting the .xxx domain... I think it is a very very very very important domain. We need a realtively easy way to filter out those sites. I dont understand why so many of these crap domains are created, when the one that could really be useful is getting rejected... must be because of lobbists




RE: ug
By SkAiN on 5/23/2006 6:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you there. Everytime I see one of these articles I check it out to see the status of .xxx domains.

From what I hear, the ICANN were all set to approve the .xxx TLD when some right-wing conservative religious groups got their lobbyists involved (can't remember the groups' names)--suddenly they completely reversed their standing on the subject.

It would make things much easier for parents and schools, etc to determine what sites are appropriate, and make it harder for children to bypass as well. It would take time, obviously, for all the smut to move over to the new TLD, but it would be worth it in my opinion.


RE: ug
By OddTSi on 5/23/2006 8:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't kept up at ALL on the .xxx domain thing, so excuse my ignorance here. What exactly is the argument AGAINST .xxx domains?


RE: ug
By Zirconium on 5/23/2006 8:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
Basically, they don't want porn on the internet at all, and they feel that a .xxx domain endorses pornography in some way.


RE: ug
By smitty3268 on 5/23/2006 10:10:53 PM , Rating: 1
Yep, basically it is the same arguments conservatives make against teaching safe sex - that it would condone it and make abstinence only programs less effective.


RE: ug
By ksherman on 5/24/2006 1:13:35 AM , Rating: 2
i wish there wasnt so much conservitive/republican bashing 'round here... I am one such person, and I cannot fathom their reasoning behind trying to deny it. To me, this offers us a good way to filter the sites out of our internet. If us righties want porn sites in general wacked, then this is a step in the right direction. There is no way to get rid of it all... this seems like such a good way to further those goal...

IMO, it is more than likely that the pron industry hired a bunch of lobbyists to squash it. Think about it. Conserviatives have a LOT to gain from this, so who has to lose? the ones that make the crap in the first place. They dont want their sites to be easily filtered, DUH!!

I HIGHLY doubt that it is the right-wing conservatives that are squashing it. That doesnt make any sense...


RE: ug
By smitty3268 on 5/24/2006 1:54:39 AM , Rating: 2
I wasn't trying to bash them, I really have heard that they are against it. I'm sure the porn industry is lobbying hard as well.

There is no way to get rid of it all...
Some would say that you never will with that attitude. And the only way to win is to stand against porn of all types, never giving it an inch. These people aren't very practical, but they have very strong beliefs and refuse to compromise them. Not the worst trait for someone to have, although I don't agree with them in this or many other cases.


RE: ug
By TomZ on 5/24/2006 9:10:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no way to get rid of it all... Some would say that you never will with that attitude. And the only way to win is to stand against porn of all types, never giving it an inch.

Who are you to decide for the rest of us that content is "right" or "wrong"? The best way for you to "fight" adult content is to just simply avoid it .

And while you're doing that, please understand and acknowledge that others have the right to make the same decision for themselves. We are not a bunch of children not capable of thinking for ourselves.


RE: ug
By Griswold on 5/24/2006 6:14:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I HIGHLY doubt that it is the right-wing conservatives that are squashing it. That doesnt make any sense...


Alot of what they say and do doesnt make sense. So, this wouldnt surprise me at all.


RE: ug
By TomZ on 5/23/2006 8:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think it is a very very very very important domain. We need a realtively easy way to filter out those sites.

No, it wouldn't be. Here are some reasons without even thinking about it for more than 1 minute:

1. How do you get all the current adult web sites to give up those assets (i.e., domain names) and switch over to .xxx?

2. Who will enforce that all adult web sites use .xxx? Note that the Internet is global (not controlled by any government) and there is no enforcement body.

3. Who will decide what content has to be in .xxx and what content doesn't have to? Who will be in charge of defining "pornography"?

4. Lots of insecure religious types would help oppose it because they (incorrecty) think it would cause more porn to be on the Internet.

These are just some reasons that .xxx would never work. Feel free to add your own - I'm sure there are more.


RE: ug
By TomZ on 5/23/2006 8:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
I want to add, that I like the "goal" (making it easier to write filtering software), but the .xxx approach is not effective. If .xxx was implemented, filtering software would basically stay the same, except it would filter out .xxx TLD content in addition to everything it filters out today. In other words, there would still be all the current adult content in .com, etc. That will never go away.


RE: ug
By jcolonial7 on 5/24/2006 12:21:38 AM , Rating: 3
I agree. The last time I pointed out these problems, I got nothing but bigotry and knee-jerk reactions about how I must be a bible-thumping evangelist just because I didn't agree that a .xxx domain was such an obvious and flawless solution. You don't have to be an extremist to find glaring holes in the .xxx proposal.


RE: ug
By RyanM on 5/24/2006 2:58:44 AM , Rating: 2
Funny thing - You're in the same position as the EFF, who are CERTAINLY not Bible-thumping evangelists.


RE: ug
By ksherman on 5/24/2006 1:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
interesting point...

true its not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. Is there no way to force a site to convert to a sepcific domain? can a group be established to do somethign like that? Or would that infuriate too many people?

I think a solution for the "who gets what name" deal would be to keep the domains that same for those trasferring over... Maybe thats to idealistic/naive of me to think that would work easily...


RE: ug
By creathir on 5/24/2006 4:11:57 PM , Rating: 1
And what about all the Internet sites that ALREADY EXIST that refuse to get a .xxx domain? How will those be filtered?

Going to MAKE them move?

How will you enforce that?

What is to stop sites from getting a .com, then having links to .xxx sites? Or links to IP addresses? What will you do then?

This business of DEMANDING certain content be placed in certain areas is absurd. I can understand limiting content to certain TLDs (mil, gov, edu) but not forcing everyone from one content to move to another tld...
What of all the hundereds of thousands of advertising dollars spent that would suddenly be made worthless?

I despise porn... I cannot stand it one bit... but this does not mean we should force content to be moved from one TLD to another...
It will not stop it...
This is the Internet... founded on principles of free speech, not free speech if you are saying only what we like.

- Creathir

(Personally, I do not care if there is a .xxx tld, as it just does not matter to me... but this argument that it should be the ONLY place porn is allowed... I do not like it... it pisses off the libritarian in me, and I vote Christian-conservative!)


Stupid name for a mobile domain
By ET on 5/24/2006 4:30:16 AM , Rating: 3
Think of what's required to type this on a phone:
6, wait, 666, 22, 444.
The only really good current mobile shortcut is 'wap', which is 927.




By Lord Zado on 5/24/2006 8:00:25 AM , Rating: 2
That's a very good point!


RE: Stupid name for a mobile domain
By jtesoro on 5/31/2006 9:09:58 AM , Rating: 2
I actually thought using "wap" as the prefix instead of "www" is what will denote mobile content. I think the suffix should imply the type of content or establishment rather than the technology or access method.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Related Articles
.TEL Top Level Domain Approved
May 18, 2006, 12:52 PM
ICANN Rejects .XXX Top Level Domain
May 11, 2006, 1:41 PM
.eu Domain Has Outgrown .biz Domain
April 13, 2006, 9:29 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki