An Alternative to .XXX: IANA Adult Port Assignments

[GeorgeK]

As an alternative to the creation of the .XXX TLD, ICANN/IANA can assign special port numbers that can be used to label adult content.

Preliminaries

IANA assigns port numbers as part of its duties. For example, port 80 is reserved for the HTTP protocol (i.e. the World Wide Web). Port 443 is reserved for the HTTPS protocol (SSL-secure version of HTTP). Port 23 is for Telnet, port 25 is for SMTP, and so on. One can see the full list at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers

One can theoretically run protocols over any port (e.g. you can have a web server on port 25 or port 18666 -- http://localhost:18666/ could access a webserver running locally on port 18666). In a real sense, the IANA port assignments are just suggestions to the world as to what to expect on certain ports, whether it be a mail server, WHOIS, FTP, POP email or any other service/protocol.

.XXX Proposal

Ultimately, the .XXX proposal comes down to the use of a top-level-domain (TLD) string as a label mechanism. It creates an expectation that if one goes to the domain example.xxx, it will probably have adult content.

The .XXX proposal has been very controversial, as one can see from the public comments at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-icm-agreement/ .

One of the major criticisms is the name allocation mechanism. There can only be one sex.xxx or porn.xxx, for example. Should that domain be allocated to the current registrant of sex.com? What about the registrant of sex.ca or sex.co.uk or sex.net or sex.de or other existing TLDs? Allocation mechanisms such as auctions or RFPs or "priority to oldest existing registered domain" and other systems have been discussed, but none that will make everyone happy.

In addition, there has been a great concern that trademark holders or existing registrants will need to make defensive registrations, in order to prevent their comparable domains to be registered in the .XXX space. For example, IBM might never want to get into the adult content business, but will likely be compelled to register IBM.XXX. Mercedes-Benz owns Mercedes.com, and likely will not want to see adult content at Mercedes.XXX via a webcam girl whose first name happens to be "Mercedes." A non-trademark holder (e.g. an individual John Smith) might feel compelled to register JohnSmith.XXX to ensure that someone else doesn't register it and use it inappropriately. Some have argued that new TLDs are almost guaranteed a profit because of the vast number of defensive registrations that are made in sunrise periods, usually at premium prices relative to general registrations, in order to prevent cybersquatting.

There are also concerns that registrants will need to pay $60/year or more to a new registry, which is considerably higher than their existing domains, and that this represents a "tax" on their business, increasing their costs for the benefit of a for-profit registry operator.

Suppose .XXX was rejected. Does an alternative mechanism exist to label content? There already exist mechanisms such as ICRA labels, for instance. They can be used with any TLD, and don't require a new TLD. Indeed, the use of .XXX is really a very simple form of a label, in that a domain using it is allowing a "binary choice" form of filtering, either something is in .XXX, or not in .XXX (i.e. "on/off"). Others have counterproposed .KIDS, as a white-listed TLD, instead.

Use of Port Numbers as a Label

Another alternative would be for ICANN/IANA to assign, reserve and register port numbers specifically for adult-related content. As an example, port 18666 is currently unreserved/unassigned, and can thus be used as a label to the world to expect adult content to be on that port. Ports 18001 through 18180 are also unreserved/unassigned at present. [Age 18 is typically the age at which one is considered an "adult", thus motivating those particular numeric choices; the "666" is there for those who recall the April Fool's Joke about the "Evil Bit", i.e. RFC 3514, see

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/04/01/133217.shtml

so, one can in a way consider this the "Evil Port", if one has a sense of humour, although there is no technical reason why any random port can handle the job of being the label] Ideally, two ports would be reserved, to be able to have counterparts to secure (HTTPS) and non-secure (HTTP) protocols.

Adult companies that wish to label their content could thus do so by serving their content on the chosen port (I'll use 18666 in the following examples, but it can be anything that ICANN/IANA decides upon).

Instead of having a nude image at http://www.example.com/nude.jpg the webmaster could instead "label" it by having the nude image come instead from http://www.example.com:18666/nude.jpg . Browsers like Internet Explorer, FireFox and Opera could eventually even shorten the above using "adult" as a replacement for the combination of "http" and "18666", so that one could use "adult://www.example.com/nude.jpg" as a URL.

On a technical level, this is very easy to implement, as Apache and other webservers can be configured to serve up content on any port. At a first approximation, the cost is $0. It is obviously much cheaper and less disruptive to implement for adult webmasters than registering .XXX domains.

Also, the contention over the allocation mechanisms of a .XXX domain would disappear under this alternative. Sex.com, sex.ca, sex.net, sex.de, sex.co.uk, and all other TLDs can co-exist, all serving up their adult content on ports 18666 instead of port 80, if they wanted to use a port-based label mechanism. Companies like Playboy, Penthouse, etc. need not register any new domains, they just would change a webserver setting instead if they wished to use this alternative form of a content label.

There would be no need for defensive registrations, as folks could continue along with their existing domains. Mercedes-Benz, Gucci, Yahoo, Chanel or other brandholders would not need to worry that cybersquatters have another playground in which to infringe upon their trademarks.

Some supporters of .XXX only support it if governments make it mandatory. Their theory is that it would be a lot easier to filter adult content if it was all located in the .XXX space. However, if the government instead made it mandatory that all adult content was served from port 18666, it could be filtered just as easily (it's a very trivial firewall rule to permit/deny access to a single port). ISPs or parental filtering software could filter a single port just as easily as they can filter a single TLD.

Some supporters of .XXX want to make a lot of money (i.e. through operation of the registry, being a registrar, or speculating in domain names)! The use of port 18666 would not make these people happy, though, as there'd be no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, to implement use of a port label such as port 18666 to identify content. However, if it is the goal of ICANN to find efficient and low-cost solutions to "problems", the use of ports as a label mechanism is offered as an alternative to solve the same problems that .XXX purportedly solves.

If you support this as a low-cost and efficient alternative proposal to .XXX, you can still leave public comments for ICANN at [email protected] (mentioning "IANA Adult Port Assignments" in the subject somewhere might make things easier to track) before ICANN makes its decision on .XXX at the end of March.

[tony286]

this is a terrible idea once again we end up in a cyber ghetto.There are filters out there that work great,they just have to be used.

[GeorgeK]

Tony: if it's a choice of moving to a new TLD, though, with its inherent costs, a port-based content filter is considerably cheaper (no need for 500,000+ domains at $60/yr each through .XXX).

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by tony404

this is a terrible idea once again we end up in a cyber ghetto.There are filters out there that work great,they just have to be used.

Correct.

[GeorgeK]

Suppose you have 2 optional schemes --- label with content on a different port, or label with content on a brand new TLD (.xxx) -- which is cheaper?

Suppose you have 2 mandatory schemes -- label with content on a different port, or label with content on a brand new TLD (.xxx) -- which is cheaper?

The above scheme doesn't depend on mandatory vs. optional --- but it is cheaper either way.

[GeorgeK]

Suppose you have 2 optional schemes --- label with content on a different port, or label with content on a brand new TLD (.xxx) -- which is cheaper?

Suppose you have 2 mandatory schemes -- label with content on a different port, or label with content on a brand new TLD (.xxx) -- which is cheaper?

The above scheme doesn't depend on mandatory vs. optional --- but it is cheaper either way.

[GeorgeK]

Just read about

http://www.cp80.org/content/solutions/community-ports

posted elsewhere. Same idea (didn't notice that other one -- derived independently; I guess great minds think alike, or fools seldom differ).

[tony286]

both are very bad, one may cost less but in the end still fucked. If either became law, you would lose a big part of a sites traffic. If you dont have a site you wouldnt understand.

[fetishblog]

No thanks. I'll keep my sites where they are now.

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by tony404

both are very bad, one may cost less but in the end still fucked. If either became law, you would lose a big part of a sites traffic. If you dont have a site you wouldnt understand.

i own sites and to me this sounds better than if xxx was mandatory. i have over 150 domains to renew every year!

[tony286]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

i own sites and to me this sounds better than if xxx was mandatory. i have over 150 domains to renew every year!

say goodbye to daytime work traffic,college traffic, isp's that shut it off because of religious group pressure.its the same as .xxx but without the upfront cost.

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by tony404

say goodbye to daytime work traffic,college traffic, isp's that shut it off because of religious group pressure.its the same as .xxx but without the upfront cost.

well if xxx was mandatory that would happen anyhow but of course i rather have neither of these happen. though i can't imagine many other countries besides the US passing such a law, which would put US webmasters at a big disadvantage. i just hope it doesn't get approved and we can forget about it.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

well if xxx was mandatory that would happen anyhow but of course i rather have neither of these happen. though i can't imagine many other countries besides the US passing such a law, which would put US webmasters at a big disadvantage. i just hope it doesn't get approved and we can forget about it.

We are on the same page

[Brad Mitchell]

It is, at least, an interesting concept. Someone at least gets credit for creativity.

We all agree .XXX is bad.

Brad

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by GeorgeK

Tony: if it's a choice of moving to a new TLD, though, with its inherent costs, a port-based content filter is considerably cheaper (no need for 500,000+ domains at $60/yr each through .XXX).

dude... you obviously don't have any revenue generating sites online. whats cheaper? not losing a shitload of traffic. that solution is cheaper.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by tony404

say goodbye to daytime work traffic,college traffic, isp's that shut it off because of religious group pressure.its the same as .xxx but without the upfront cost.

exactly. wow... talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

[RawAlex]

It really isn't an interesting concept at all, because by putting all porn on, say port 6969, you make it easy for any company to decline to carry the services (to pass the traffic).

Let's say the state of Utah decides to ban traffic on port 6969... what can we do?

Let's say the Moral Majority types buy a controlling interest in one of the major carriers. Suddenly, their equipment no longer transports port6969 (but still advertises a valid route, which fucks things up even worse).

The whole point of not wanting to be on a port, forced into .XXX or having some other scarlett letter painted on our traffic is specifically because it makes it too easy for the righteous morons of the world to stop the traffic from moving, and thereby denying ordinary citizens their rights.

If you want to play TLD or port games, I recommend that all kid safe material is put on .KIDS or port 9999. End of problem.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

It really isn't an interesting concept at all, because by putting all porn on, say port 6969, you make it easy for any company to decline to carry the services (to pass the traffic).

Let's say the state of Utah decides to ban traffic on port 6969... what can we do?

Let's say the Moral Majority types buy a controlling interest in one of the major carriers. Suddenly, their equipment no longer transports port6969 (but still advertises a valid route, which fucks things up even worse).

The whole point of not wanting to be on a port, forced into .XXX or having some other scarlett letter painted on our traffic is specifically because it makes it too easy for the righteous morons of the world to stop the traffic from moving, and thereby denying ordinary citizens their rights.

If you want to play TLD or port games, I recommend that all kid safe material is put on .KIDS or port 9999. End of problem.

very good point

[GeorgeK]

I'm not suggesting it's superior to the status quo. But, compared to .xxx, where you can still be blocked, but have to pay ICM Registry for that "privilege", one would think it's better than that, since you don't have to get brand new domains.

For those who are saying they want to be "responsible webmasters" and that's the reason they "support" .XXX, let them put their content on port 18666 or 6969 themselves, instead of creating a new TLD with all its inherent problems.

[Nodtveidt]

CP80 has a bucketload of ulterior motives on the plate. Might be even more corrupt than ICM.

[roger700]

All the best!

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by GeorgeK

I'm not suggesting it's superior to the status quo. But, compared to .xxx, where you can still be blocked, but have to pay ICM Registry for that "privilege", one would think it's better than that, since you don't have to get brand new domains.

For those who are saying they want to be "responsible webmasters" and that's the reason they "support" .XXX, let them put their content on port 18666 or 6969 themselves, instead of creating a new TLD with all its inherent problems.

Quite simply, don't fall for the bullshit. This isn't an "either or" situation. XXX is nothing more than an attempt to extort money from webmasters and to put a private company in the middle of a multi million dollar industry, likely collecting tens of millions of dollars a year for a product that just isn't needed, and doesn't help anyone out.

You don't have to propose any other alternative except the current one: porn is protected free speech, and has not reason to be seperated from other discussions or websites that involve normal material. If they want to protect children, charge Disney $70 per domain and let them work it out.

We don't have to come up with a "better answer", we are already there.

[tony286]

I cant believe he posted his "idea" on the icann board. Also I love people who dont work in a adult giving us advice.

[Ycaza]

as the resident engineer on this board I want to say this idea totally sucks. the second easiest way to make us a 976 industry gone wrong is to force us into a single Tld, the first is to put us on a port because it is even easier to exclude us this way than on a domain based system. I appreciate the thinking but puhlease, that is goin from the frying pan to the fire.