Fred Baker wrote:
>
> At 02:53 PM 8/11/00 -0700, Greg Skinner wrote:
> >I have heard on some local (SF bay area) technology news reports that
> >the Commission on Online Child Protection is looking at dividing the
> >IPv6 address space into regions that can be classified according to
> >their "safety" for child access.
>
> I wouldn't worry excessively about that. This is roughly comparable to the
> argument that there should be a DNS TLD ".kids" in which folks who have a
> non-porn web site can get a domain name. Best.com is now part of Verio,
> which is in turn becoming part of NTT. All of these are non-porn companies.
> Is that their most important aspect, one they are going to base their
> domain name one? nay, nay...
>
> Addresses will be assigned by address registries to service providers, and
> in turn to subscribers to service providers. The commission presumably has
> some valid comment on what content should be accessible by children, but it
> has no idea whether or how that relates to the business structure of the
> Internet, and therefore to IPv6 addressing.
Indeed. Or to put it another way, since this "solution" simply doesn't work,
and is in fact meaningless technically, it won't happen.
Brian
