Originally Posted by xxxjay

I agree. I assume it would be the FSC that would be the main opposition to this. I found this quote here, which I find kind of worrysome:

"Tom Hymes, AVN Online

?There is also a strong case for having a content-specific gTLD (and corresponding SLDs under ccTLDs) such as .xxx or .sex. Sexually explicit services could then be legally required to operate with domain names in this gTLD (or SLD under a ccTLD) that would make it much simpler and easier to control access to such sites to protect children from the whitehouse.com problem, for example. This would not be to impose censorship or restrict free speech, but would restore an effective means for consumer choice which sites like whitehouse.com subvert by exploiting that present ?inherent propensity to confuse?). Similarly, non-commercial sites, including sites for abuse or complaint might usefully be allocated a specific SLD for that purpose.? [9]"

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/it...tml#P161_39485