OK, ICANN has finally approved the “porn friendly” (CNET’s phrase) .xxx TLD (top-level domain, such as .com, .net and so on).

Wow, that’ll do nothing except line the coffers of domain registrars.

This decision – which does not require porn purveyors to move to this domain – is essentially meaningless.

Here’s why:

• There is no rule for porn purveyors to move to this TLD. So concerned parents who set up (whatever currently non-exisitent) tools to block this domain will not block sex.com, only sex.xxx, for example.
• There is no rule for porn purveyors to move to this TLD. So concerned parents who (try to) teach their kids to avoid .xxx domains will still not prevent those kids from visting, for example, sex.com, only sex.xxx
• There is no rule for porn purveyors to move to this TLD. So what are those porn purveyors going to do? Yeah, register [my porn site].xxx in addition to [my porn site].com, [my port site].net, [my porn site].tv and so on.
• There is no rule that says you can’t have a NON-porn site that’s with a .xxx TLD. Why is this bad? Why would someone want to pick this TLD for a non-porn site? You really think someone is NOT goning to try to register CNN.xxx or google.xxx? Come on, it’ll happen. OK, what about big sites without deep pockets (CNN and Google will destroy you….)? I like the site by Jason Kottke, kottke.org. He’s a single person, only known for his blog, really. Think if some offshore company registered kottke.xxx it would be hard to get back? Probably, and expensive. While there is the whole (slowww…..ineffectual….) ICANN process to combat such attempts, they happen and it can be painful for the affected party.

Those are the practical reasons.

The others are philosophical.

I don’t disagree with porn. In the biggest-picture-possible type of way, why not? I don’t like much modern art either, should that be banned? If an adult voluntarily wants to see porn without affecting others [don’t play it on your car TV in traffic you f***ing idiot…], uh, so what?

And what is porn? Since no one – even the Supreme Court pretty much left it as “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it” – can define it, how you ban it?

What is porn?

• Showing actual sex?
• Showing fully naked and exposed whatevers and simulated or “almost” sex (no penetration, for example)?
• Showing naughty bits?
• What are “naughty bits”? Are the nudes of Georgia O’Keeffe by her husband, Afred Steiglitz, obscene because you can see nipples and pubic hair?

OK, I get at drawing the line at involving porn with kids or showing porn to kids (gee, how generous of me. I didn’t mean it that way), and if – for whatever reason – the porn was of adults who were not fully agreeable with such events (i.e. crack heads, forced prostitution etc), that should be a bad thing.

But it’s drawing that line and enforcing same that’s incredibly difficult. That’s why the .xxx TLD is a joke: Too late, dude! If things had been set up earlier to put porn (whatever porn is) in a .xxx TLD earlier, things would have been easier. Sure, some sites (Georgia O’Keeffe photos) may have been forced there, but the ICANN process should have then allowed for a “.com” address for same after petition and so on.

That might have helped, but … not totally.

Let’s take this blog. I’ve written it for four years. Let’s say I posted a picture of something pornish/randy during that time.

Does the whole blog have to move to “.xxx”?

Does my whole domain (the blog is just part of littleghost.com) have to move to “.xxx”?

Porn is not easy, but – here’s just my take – the “.xxx” TLD is not really going to help much to corrale the Internet porn issue. I can see it helping if there are (whatever) incentives for clearly “we let you view naked chicks or folks having sex” site to move to this domain – and begin advertising same (so it’s a cache thing that begins to make sense: you will type in “sex.xxx” instead of “sex.com” for the first try if you’re porn-diving).

Beyond that – and that is really feeble – “.xxx” means squat.

But I could be wrong. And that happens a lot.