Home page logo

Politech mailing list archives

FC: IETF Internet Draft: Why .xxx domain is a very bad idea
From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:10:47 -0500

[Donald Eastlake and I co-authored this IETF Internet Draft in advance of the March 18 meeting in Minneapolis. This is an inital draft, and comments are very welcome. You can also find the draft at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-xxx-00.txt --Declan]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                       Donald Eastlake 3rd
                                                        Declan McCullagh
                                                              Wired News
Expires: August 2001                                       February 2001

                       .xxx Considered Dangerous
                       ---- ---------- ---------

Status of This Document

   Distribution of this draft is unlimited. Comments should be sent to
   the authors.

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.  Internet-Drafts are
   working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
   areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also
   distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.


   Periodically there are proposals to require the use of a special top
   level name or an IP address bit to flag "adult" or "safe" material or
   the like.  This document explains why this is an ill considered idea.

D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                   [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT         .xxx Considered Dangerous           February 2001

Table of Contents

      Status of This Document....................................1
      Copyright Notice...........................................1

      Table of Contents..........................................2

      1. Background..............................................3
      2. Legal and Philisophical Problems........................4
      4. Technical Difficulties..................................6
      4.1 Domain Name System (DNS) and Other Names...............7
      4.1.1 Linguistic Problems..................................7
      4.1.2 The DNS Hierarchy and Use of TLDs....................8
      4.1.2 You Can't Control Who Points At You..................8
      4.1.3 Particular Protocol Considerations...................9 Electronic Mail (SMTP).............................9 Web Access (HTTP).................................10 News (NNTP).......................................10 Internet Relay Chat...............................10
      4.2 IP Addressing.........................................10
      4.2.1 Hierarchical Routing................................11
      4.2.2 IP Version 4 Addresses..............................12
      4.2.3 IP Version 6 Addresses..............................12
      4.3 PICS Labels...........................................13
      5. Conclusions............................................13

      Authors Addresses.........................................15

      Full Copyright Statement..................................16
      Expiration and File Name..................................16

D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                   [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT         .xxx Considered Dangerous           February 2001

1. Background

   The concept of a .xxx, .sex, or similar top-level domain is
   periodically suggested by politicians and commentators. Other
   proposals have included a domain reserved exclusively for material
   viewed as appropriate for minors, or using IP address bits or ranges
   to segregate content.

   In an October 1998 report accompanying the Child Online Protection
   Act, the House Commerce committee said "there are no technical
   barriers to creating an adult domain, and it would be very easy to
   block all websites within an adult domain." The report also said that
   the committee was wary of regulating the computer industry and that
   any decision by the U.S. government "will have international
   consequences." [HOUSEREPORT]

   British Telecom has backed adult top-level domains, saying in a 1998
   letter to the U .S. Department of Commerce that it "strongly
   supported" that plan. The reason: "Sexually explicit services could
   then be legally required to operate with domain names in this gTLD
   [that] would make it much simpler and easier to control access to
   such sites..." [BT] One of ICANN's progenitors, the GTLD-MOU
   committee, suggested a "red-light -zone" top-level domain in a
   September 1997 request for comment. [GTLD-MOU]

   Some adult industry executives have endorsed the concept. In 1998,
   Seth Warshavsky, president of the Internet Entertainment Group, told
   the U.S. Senate Commerce committee that he would like to see a .adult
   domain. "We're suggesting the creation of a new top-level domain
   called '.adult' where all sexually explicit material on the Net would
   reside," Warshavsky said in an interview at the time. [WARSHAVSKY]
   More recently, other entrepreneurs in the industry have said that
   they do not necessarily object to the creation of an adult domain as
   long as they may continue to use .com.

   Conservative groups in the U.S. say they are not eager for such a
   domain, and prefer criminal laws directed at publishers and
   distributors of sexually-explicit material.  The National Law Center
   for Children and Families in Fairfax, Virginia, said in February 2001
   that it did not favor any such proposal. For different reasons, the
   American Civil Liberties Union and civil liberties groups also oppose

   Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the U.S. Democratic Party's vice presidential
   nominee, endorsed the idea at a June 2000 meeting of the federal
   Commission on Child Online Protection. Lieberman said in a prepared
   statement that "we would ask the arbiters of the Internet to simply
   abide by the same standard as the proprietor of an X-rated movie
   theater or the owner of a convenience store who sells sexually-
   explicit magazines." [LIEBERMAN]

D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                   [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT         .xxx Considered Dangerous           February 2001

   In the 1998 law creating this commission, the U.S. Congress required
   the members to investigate "the establishment of a domain name for
   posting of any material that is harmful to minors." The commission
   devoted a section of its October 2000 report to that topic. It
   concluded that both a .xxx and a .kids domain are technically
   possible, but would require action by ICANN. The report said that an
   adult domain might be only "moderately effective" and raises privacy
   and free speech concerns. [COPAREPORT]

   The commission also explored the creation of a so-called red zone or
   green zone for content by means of allocation of a new set of IP
   addresses under IPv6. Any material not in one of those two zones
   would be viewed as in a grey zone and not necessarily appropriate or
   inappropriate for minors. Comments from commissioners were largely
   negative: "Effectiveness would require substantial effort to attach
   content to specific I P numbers. This approach could potentially
   reduce flexibility and impede optimal network performance. It would
   not be effective at blocking access to chat, newsgroups, or instant

   In October 2000, ICANN rejected a .xxx domain during its initial
   round of approving additional top-level domains. The reasons are not
   entirely clear, but former ICANN Chairwoman Esther Dyson said that
   the adult industry did not entirely agree that such a domain would be
   appropriate. One .xxx hopeful, ICM Registry of Ontario, Canada, in
   December 2000 asked ICANN to reconsider its decision. [ICM-REGISTRY]

2. Legal and Philisophical Problems

   When it comes to sexually-explicit material, every person, court, and
   government has a different view of what's acceptable and what is not.
   Attitudes change over time, and what is viewed as appropriate in one
   town may spark protests in the next. When faced with the slippery
   nature of what depictions of sexual activity should be illegal or
   not, one U.S. Supreme Court justice blithely defined obscenity as: "I
   know it when I see it."

   In the U.S., obscenity is defined as explicit sexual material that,
   among other things, violates "contemporary community standards" -- in
   other words, even at the national level, there is no agreed-upon rule
   governing what is illegal and what is not. Making matters more knotty
   is that there are over 200 United Nations country codes, and in most
   of them political subdivisions can impose their own restrictions.
   Even for legal nude modeling, age restrictions differ. They're
   commonly 18 years of age, but only 17 years of age in Sweden. A
   photographer in Oslo conducting what's viewed as a legal and proper
   photo shoot there likely would be branded a felon and child
   pornographer in the U.S.

D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                   [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT         .xxx Considered Dangerous           February 2001

   Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China are not likely to have the same liberal
   views as, say, the Netherlands. Saudi Arabia, like some other
   nations, filters its Internet connection and has created a government
   committee to protect its society from web sites that officials view
   as immoral. Their views on what should be included in a .xxx domain
   would hardly be identical to those in more liberal democracies.

   Those wildly different opinions on sexual material make it improbable
   a global consensus can ever be reached on what is appropriate or
   inappropriate for a .xxx or .adult top-level domain. Moreover, the
   existence of such a domain would create an irresistible temptation on
   the part of conservative legislators to require controversial
   publishers to move to that domain.

   Some conservative politicians already have complained that ICANN did
   not approve .xxx in its October 2000 meeting. During a February 2001
   hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives, legislators warned that
   they "want to explore ICANN's rationale for not approving two
   particular top level domain names -- .kids and .xxx -- as a means to
   protect kids from the awful smut which is so widespread on the

   It seems plausible that only a few adult publishers, and not those
   who have invested resources in building a brand around a .com site,
   would voluntarily abandon their current domain name. Instead, they'd
   likely add a propel legislators in the U.S. and other countries to
   require them to publish exclusively from an adult domain, a move that
   would invite ongoing political interference with Internet governance
   and raise concerns about forced speech and self-labeling.

   In fact, the ultimate arbiter of generic top-level domain names -- at
   least currently -- is not ICANN, but the U.S. government. The U.S.
   Congress' General Accounting Office in July 2000 reported that the
   Commerce Department continues to be responsible for domain names
   allowed by the authoritative root. [GAO] The GAO's auditors concluded
   it was unclear whether the Commerce Department has the "requisite
   authority" under current law to transfer that responsibility to

   The American Civil Liberties Union -- and other members of the
   international Global Internet Liberty Campaign -- caution that
   publishers speaking frankly about birth control, AIDS prevention, and
   gay and lesbian sex could be coerced into moving to an adult domain.
   Once there, they would be stigmatized and easily blocked by schools,
   libraries, companies, and other groups using filtering software.
   Publishers of such information who do not view themselves as
   pornographers and retain their existing addresses could be targeted
   for prosecution.

   The existence of an adult top-level domain would likely open the door

D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                   [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT         .xxx Considered Dangerous           February 2001

   for related efforts, either policy or legislative. There are many
   different axes through which offensive material can be defined: Sex,
   violence, hate, heresy, subversion, blasphemy, illegal drugs,
   profanity, political correctness, glorification of crime, incitement
   to break the law, and so on. Such suggestions invite the ongoing
   lobbying of ICANN, the U.S. government, or other policy-making bodies
   by special-interest groups that are not concerned with the technical
   feasibility or practicality of their advice.

   An adult top-level domain could have negative legal repercussions by
   endangering free expression. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day
   O'Connor has suggested that the presence of "adult zones" on the
   Internet would make a future Communications Decency Act (CDA) more
   likely to be viewed as constitutional. In her partial dissent to the
   Supreme Court's rejection of the CDA in 1997 [CDA], O'Connor said
   that "the prospects for the eventual zoning of the Internet appear
   promising." (The Supreme Court ruled the CDA violated free speech
   rights by making it a crime to distribute "indecent" or "patently
   offensive" material online.)

   Privacy could be harmed by such a proposal. It would become easier
   for repressive governments and other institutions to track visits to
   sites in a domain labeled as adult and record personally-identifiable
   information about the visitor. Repressive governments would instantly
   have more power to monitor naive users and prosecute them for their
   activities. It's also not clear how effective a top-level domain
   would be when controlling access to chat, email, newsgroups and
   instant messaging.

4. Technical Difficulties

   Even ignoring the philosophical and legal difficulties outlined
   above, there are substantial technical difficulties in attempting to
   impose content classification by domain names or IP addresses.
   Mandatory content labeling is usually advanced with the idea of using
   a top level domain name, discussed in section 4.1 below, but we also
   discuss the more fundamental possibility of using IP address bits or
   ranges in section 4.2 below.

   In section 4.3 difficulties with a few particular higher level
   protocols are discussed.  In some cases, these protocols use
   different name spaces.

   We also discuss PICS labels [PICS] as an alternative technology in
   section 4.4.

   Only a limited technical background is assumed so some basic
   information is included below and in some cases descriptions are

D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                   [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT         .xxx Considered Dangerous           February 2001


4.1 Domain Name System (DNS) and Other Names

   The most prominent user visible part of Internet naming and
   addressing is the domain name system [RFC 1034, 1035].  Domain Names
   are dotted sequences of labels such as aol.com, world.std.com,
   www.rosslynchapel.org.uk, or ftp.gnu.lcs.mit.edu [RFC 1035, 1591,
   2606].  They form an important part of most World Wide Web addresses
   or URLs [RFC 2396], commonly appearing right after "//".

   Actually, domain names just name nodes in a global distributed
   hierarchically delegated database.  A wide variety of information can
   be stored at these nodes including IP addresses of machines on the
   network (see section 4.2 below), such things as mail delivery
   information, and many other types of information.  Thus, the data
   stored at foo.example.com could be the numeric information for
   sending data to a particular machine, which would be used if you
   tried to browse <http://foo.example.com>, the name of a computer (say
   mailhost.example.com) to handle mail addressed to anyone
   @foo.example.com, and other information.

   There are also other naming systems in use, such as news group names
   and Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel names.

   The usual labeling idea presented is to reserve a top level name,
   such as .xxx for "adult" material and/or .kids for "safe" material or
   the like.  Ignoring the definitional and legal problems there are
   technical and linguistic problems with this are described in the
   subsections below.

4.1.1 Linguistic Problems

   When using name labeling, the first problem is from whose language do
   you take the names to impose?  Words and acronyms can have very
   different meanings if different languages and the probability of
   confusion is multiplied when phonetic collisions are considered.

   As an example of possible problems, note that currently the
   government of Turkmenistan has suspended new registrations in ".tm",
   which had previously been a source of revenue, because some of the
   registered second level domain names may have been "legally obscene
   in Turkmenistan".  <http://www.nic.tm>

D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                   [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT         .xxx Considered Dangerous           February 2001

4.1.2 The DNS Hierarchy and Use of TLDs

   An important aspect of the design of the Domain Name System (DNS) is
   the hierarchical delegation of data maintenance.  The DNS really only
   works, and has been able to scale the five orders of magnitude it has
   grown since its initial deployment, only due to this delegation.

   The first minor problem is that one would expect most computers or
   web sites to have a mix of material only some of which should be
   specially classified.  Using special TLDs multiples the number of DNS
   zones the site has to worry about.  For example, assume the site has
   already sorted its material into "kids", "normal, and "adult" piles.
   Without special TLD labels, it can store them under kids.example.net,
   adult.example.net, and other.example.net, for instance, which
   requires only the maintenance of the single example.net zone of
   database entries.  With special TLD labeling, at least example.net
   (for normal stuff), example.net.xxx, and example.net.kids would need
   to be maintained which are three separate zones in different parts of
   the DNS tree.  As the number of categories expands and the number of
   category combinations explodes, this quickly becomes completely

4.1.2 You Can't Control Who Points At You

   The DNS system works as a database and associates certain data,
   called resource records, or RRs, with domain names.  In particular,
   it can associate IP address resource records with domain names.  For
   example, when you browse a URL, most commonly the domain name within
   that URL is looked up in the DNS and the resulting address (see
   Section 4.2) is used to address the packets sent from your web
   browser or other software to the server or peer.

   Remember what we said in Section 4.1.1 about hierarchical delegation?
   Anyone controlling a DNS zone of data, say example.com, can insert
   data at that name or any deeper name (except to the extent they
   maintain delegations of some of the deeper namespace to yet others).
   So the controller of example.com can insert data so that
   purity.example.com has stored at it the same computer address which
   is at www.obscene.example.xxx.  This directs any reference to
   purity.example.com to use the associated IP address which is the same
   as the www.obscene.example.xxx web site.  The manager of that
   hypothetical web site, who controls the example.xxx zone, has no
   control over the example.com DNS zone and so is technically incapable
   of causing it to conform to any "xxx" labeling law.  Or, in the
   alternative, someone could create a name conforming to an adult
   labeling requirement that actually pointed to someone else's entirely
   unobjectionable site, perhaps for the purpose of polluting the

D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                   [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT         .xxx Considered Dangerous           February 2001

   Thus, providers of data on the Internet cannot stop anyone from
   creating names pointing to their computer's IP address with
   misleading domain names.

4.1.3 Particular Protocol Considerations

   There are additional considerations related to particular protocols.
   We consider only a few here.  The first two, electronic mail and the
   World Wide Web, use domain name addressing.  The second two, net news
   and IRC, actually use different name spaces and illustrate further
   technical problems with name based labeling. Electronic Mail (SMTP)

   The standard Internet electronic mail protocol separates "envelope"
   information from content [RFC 821, 822].  The envelope information
   indicates where a message claims to have originated and to whom it
   should be delivered.  The content has fields starting with labels
   like "From:" and "To:" but these actually have no effect and can be
   arbitrarily forged using simple normally available software, such a
   telnetting to the SMTP port on a mail server.  Content fields are not
   compared with envelope fields.

   While different mail client display envelope information and headers
   from the content of email differently, generally the more common
   content fields are given prominence.  Thus, while not exactly the
   same as content labeling, it should be noted that it is trivial to
   send mail to anyone with arbitrary domain names in the email
   addresses appearing in the From and To headers, etc.

   It is also easy set up a host to forward mail to a mailing list.
   Mail sent with normal mail tools to this forwarder will automatically
   have content headers reflecting the forwarder's name but the
   forwarder will change the envelope information and cause the mail to
   be actually sent to the original list.  For example, (with names
   disguised) there is a social mailing list innocuous () foo example org
   and someone set up a forwarder at cat-torturers () other example   Mail
   sent to the forwarder is forwarded and appears on the innocuous
   mailing list but with a "To: cat-torturers () other example" header in
   its body.  In some cases, similar things can be done using the "bcc"
   or blind courtesy copy feature of Internet mail.

   Thus, standard Internet tools provide no way to control domain names
   appearing inside email headers.

   There is work proceeding on securing email; however, such efforts at

D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                   [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT         .xxx Considered Dangerous           February 2001

   present only allow you to verify whether or not a particular entity
   was the actual author of the mail.  They do not generally relate to
   controlling or authenticating domain names in the content of the
   mail. Web Access (HTTP)

   At least with modern web servers and browsers supporting HTTP 1.1
   [RFC 2616], the domain name used to access the site is available to
   access different web sites even though they are on the same machine
   at the same IP address.

   (more to come) News (NNTP)

   Net news uses hierarchical structured newsgroup names that are
   similar in appearance to domain names except that the most
   significant label is on the left and the least on the right, the
   opposite of domain names.  However, while the names are structured
   hierarchically, there is no central control.  Instead, news servers
   periodically connect to other news servers that have agreed to
   exchange messages with them and then they update each other on
   messages only in those newsgroups in which they wish to exchange

   (more to come) Internet Relay Chat

   Internet Relay Chat is another example of a service which uses a
   different name space.  (more to come)

4.2 IP Addressing

   A key characteristic of the Internet Protocol (IP) on which the
   Internet is based is that it breaks data up into "packets".  These
   packets are individually handled and routed from source to
   destination.  Each packet has in it a numeric address for the
   destination point to which the Internet will try to deliver the

D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                  [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT         .xxx Considered Dangerous           February 2001

   (End users do not normally see these numeric addresses but instead
   deal with "domain names" as described in section 4.1 above.)

   The numeric address system now primarily in use is called IPv4, or
   Internet Protocol Version 4, which provides for 32 bit addresses.
   There is a move to migrate to IPv6, which provides for 128 bit

   One problem in using addressing for content filtering is that this is
   a very coarse technique.  IP addresses address network interfaces
   which usually correspond to entire computer systems which could house
   multiple web pages, sets of files, etc., only a small part of which
   it was desired to block or enable.  Increasingly, a single IP address
   may correspond to a NAT (Network Address Translation) box [NAT] which
   hides multiple computers behind it, although in that case these
   computers are usually not servers.

   However, even beyond this problem of coarse granularity, the
   practical constraints of hierarchical routing make the allocation of
   even a single IPv4 address bit or any significant number of IPv6
   address bits impossible.

4.2.1 Hierarchical Routing

   As packets of data flow through the Internet, decisions must be made
   as to how to forward them "towards" their destination.  This is
   normally done by comparing the initial bits of the packet destination
   address to entries in a "routing table" and forwarding the packets as
   indicated by the table entry with the longest prefix match.

   While the Internet is actually a general mesh, if, for simplicity, we
   consider it to have a central backbone at the "top", a packet is
   typically routed as follows:

   The local networking code looks at its routing table to determine if
   the packet should be sent directly to another computer on the "local"
   network, to a router to specially forward it to another nearby
   network, or routed "up" to a "default" router to forward it to a
   higher level service provider's network.  If the packet's destination
   is "far enough away" it will eventually get forwarded up to a router
   on the backbone.  Such a router can not sent the packet "up" since it
   is at the top or "default free" zone and must have a complete table
   of what other top level router to send the packet to.  Currently,
   such top level routers are very large and expensive devices. They
   must be able to maintain tables of tens of thousands of routes.  When
   the packet gets to the top level router of the part of the network
   within which its destination lies, it get forwarded "down" to
   successive routers which are more and more specific and local until

D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                  [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT         .xxx Considered Dangerous           February 2001

   eventually its gets to a router on the local network where its
   destination address lies.  This local router sends the packet
   directly to the destination computer.

   Because all of these routing decisions are made on a longest prefix
   match basis, it can be seen that IP addresses are not general names
   or labels but are intimately associated with the actual topology and
   routing structure of the network.  If there were assigned at random,
   routers would be required to remember so many specific routes for
   specific addresses that it would exceed the current technical
   capabilities for router design.

   It should also be noted that there is some inefficiency in allocation
   at each level of hierarchy.  Generally allocations are of a power of
   two addresses and as requirements grow and/or shrink, it is not
   practical to use every address for a computer.

   (The above simplified description ignores multi-homing and many other

4.2.2 IP Version 4 Addresses

   There just isn't any practical way to reallocate even one bit of IPv4
   global Internet Addresses for content filtering use.  Such addresses
   are in short supply and such an allocation would, in effect, cut the
   number of available addresses in half.  There just aren't enough
   addresses, given the efficiency of hierarchical allocation and
   routing, to do this.  Even if there were, current numbers have not be
   allocated with this in mind so that a renumbering within every
   organization with hosts on the Internet would be required, a
   nightmarish and Herculean task costing in the billions of dollars.
   Even if these problems were overcome, the allocation of even a single
   bit would likely double the number of routes in the default free
   zone, exceeding the capacity of current routers and requiring the
   upgrade of thousands of them to new routers that do not exist yet.

   And all this is for only a single bit, let alone more than one, is
   allocated to content labeling.

   Basically, the idea is a non-starter.

4.2.3 IP Version 6 Addresses

   IPv6 provides 128 bit address fields.  (more to come)

D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                  [Page 12]

INTERNET-DRAFT         .xxx Considered Dangerous           February 2001

4.3 PICS Labels

   PICS Labels [PICS] have several modes.  If content is required to
   have labels in it, it raises all the problems of categorization
   granularity and forced speech.  But if used in a mode whereby a third
   party determines and provides labels for content and users are free
   to select whatever such third party or parties they wish to consult,
   it is a way to permit a myriad of categories, editors, and evaluators
   to exist in parallel.

   (more to come)

5. Conclusions


D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                  [Page 13]

INTERNET-DRAFT         .xxx Considered Dangerous           February 2001


   [BT] - British Telecom comments to U.S. Commerce Department, February
   20, 1998,

   [CDA] - Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 117 S.Ct. 2329, June
   26, 1997, <http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-

   [COPAREPORT] - Final Report of the COPA Commission to the U.S.
   Congress, October 20, 2000,

   [GAO] - GAO Report OGC-00-33R, July 7, 2000,

   [GTLD-MOU] - GTLD-MOU Policy Oversight committee RFC 97-02, September
   13, 1997, <http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/notice-97-02.html>

   [HOUSEREPORT] - U.S. House Commerce Committee report, 105th Congress,
   October 5, 1998.

   [ICM-REGISTRY] - Request for reconsideration from ICM Registry to
   ICANN, December 15, 2000,

   [LIEBERMAN] - Testimony of Senator Joe Lieberman before Children's
   Online Protection Act Commission, June 8, 2000,
   <http://www.senate.gov/~lieberman/press/00/06/2000608958 .html>

   [NAT] - ...

   [PICS] -  Platform for Internet Content Selection
      Service Descriptions <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-PICS-services>
      Label Format and Distribution <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-PICS-
      PICS Rules <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-PICSRules>
      PICS Signed Labels (DSIG) 1.0 Specification

   [RFC 791] - "Internet Protocol", J. Postel, September 1981.

   [RFC 821] - "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", J. Postel, Aug-01-1982.

   [RFC 822] - "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages",
   D.  Crocker, Aug-13-1982.

D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                  [Page 14]

INTERNET-DRAFT         .xxx Considered Dangerous           February 2001

   [RFC 1034] - P. Mockapetris, "Domain Names - Concepts and
   Facilities", STD 13, November 1987.

   [RFC 1035] - P. Mockapetris, "Domain Names - Implementation and
   Specifications", STD 13, November 1987.

   [RFC 1591] - J. Postel, "Domain Name System Structure and
   Delegation", March 1994.

   [RFC 2396] - T.  Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter, "Uniform
   Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", August 1998.

   [RFC 2460] - "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification",
   Deering, S. and R. Hinden, December 1998.

   [RFC 2606] - D. Eastlake, A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names",
   June 1999.

   [RFC 2616] - "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", R. Fielding,
   J. Gettys, J. Mogul, H. Frystyk, L. Masinter, P. Leach, T. Berners-
   Lee, June 1999.

   [WARSHAVSKY] - "Congress weighs Net porn bills," CNET article,
   February 10, 1998, <http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-326435.html>

D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                  [Page 15]

INTERNET-DRAFT         .xxx Considered Dangerous           February 2001

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

Expiration and File Name

   This draft expires August 2001.

   Its file name is draft-eastlake-xxx-00.txt.

D. Eastlake 3rd, D. McCullagh                                  [Page 16]

POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
  • FC: IETF Internet Draft: Why .xxx domain is a very bad idea Declan McCullagh (Feb 28)
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]