Kids.US Todays the day !!!!!!!

Desi · 12-07-2002, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by mole

I am just disappointed that the kids.us namespace is being discussed here like another commodity to be exploited for personal gain.

Call me self-righteous for all I care, but we must draw the line sometimes in this mad dn industry.

Mole, are you suggesting that Americas big business (Disney, Nicklodeani, Pepsi and the like) would go into this with completely altruistic motives. These guys have even penetrated public schools here in the US. Mole, there's a HUGE differnce between exploitation that results in a henious crime and the commercial exploitation directed at kids (at least in the US) day and night on all media channels; you should know since this is your area of work. So its okay for big business to contemplate and carry out commercial ventures but if an ordinary person even talks about it on a forum that becomes repuslive to you...may be because you work as a media consultant for big business and can't see ordinary people think and talk like them.

**mole** · 12-07-2002, 02:36 AM

I'm not a media consultant des, I sell fugu fish for a living and about as ordinary a man as a mole can get.

Corporations who market to kids are subject to the scrunity of many consumer watchgroups. All I'm saying is that I find it sad that nothing escapes the profiteering streaks of speculators.

**bidawinner** · 12-07-2002, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by mole

No interest discussing the kids.us issue, bid, except that this should not be an area for registrations with cybersquatting or profiteering intentions in mind imo.

If Neustar had any sense, they would charge at least $500 per year for every name reg on this namespace so that they don't go back to DoC like a whinning ol grandma to say they didn't have the funds to police users of the namespace. The .kids.us namespace was endorsed by the US government in memory of a young girl who got murdered by some maniac she met on a chat board.

I am just disappointed that the kids.us namespace is being discussed here like another commodity to be exploited for personal gain.

Call me self-righteous for all I care, but we must draw the line sometimes in this mad dn industry.

Thats totally nonsense mole (no disrespect).

Kids.US is SIMPLY an area to keep the kids away from the perverts and porn..thats ALL...

$500 !! LOL..yeah right.. lets just leave it so only Disney ,Warner Brothers, Hasbro , etc are able to get in..

Please take a step back and reconsider your overly moral view point..

Kids.US is simply a SAFE zone.. where kids can go and leanr , play and shop without being harassed by the porn kings...

It is a COMMERCIAL enterprise operated by a FOR PROFIT company at the direction of the US government.

The added "security" guarentees that Kids.US will be a commercial zone as advertisers will pay for these added fees..

The child that was killed that started this bill.. was a internet porn pediphile..THats what this bill is about..keeping the pervs out...

not the FREE MARKET !

**bidawinner** · 12-07-2002, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by bidawinner

Thats totally nonsense mole (no disrespect).

Kids.US is SIMPLY an area to keep the kids away from the perverts and porn..thats ALL...

$500 !! LOL..yeah right.. lets just leave it so only Disney ,Warner Brothers, Hasbro , etc are able to get in..

Please take a step back and reconsider your overly moral view point..

Kids.US is simply a SAFE zone.. where kids can go and leanr , play and shop without being harassed by the porn kings...

It is a COMMERCIAL enterprise operated by a FOR PROFIT company at the direction of the US government.

The added "security" guarentees that Kids.US will be a commercial zone as advertisers will pay for these added fees..

The child that was killed that started this bill.. was a internet porn pediphile..THats what this bill is about..keeping the pervs out...

not the FREE MARKET !

"
Obviously that should read... The child that was killed ..was killed BY an internet porn pediphile "

**bidawinner** · 12-07-2002, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by mole
I'm not a media consultant des, I sell fugu fish for a living and about as ordinary a man as a mole can get.

Corporations who market to kids are subject to the scrunity of many consumer watchgroups. All I'm saying is that I find it sad that nothing escapes the profiteering streaks of speculators.

Hey, listen if you dont like the Free Market world there's still North Korea and China left..

How dare you suggest that it's OK for multi billion dollar corporations to cater to Kids but not anyone else..

**think** · 12-07-2002, 10:06 PM

I can understand what Mole is getting at. My guess is he would like it to be run like .schools where only eduactional institutions would be allowed to have sites. From what I've read that doesn't seem to be the case. Rather corporations and individuals will be allowed to promote and sell merchandise on kids.us. If people are speculating or trying to get quality generic domain names I don't see why that should be any problem or why it would cause a fuss. As long as people aren't truly cybersquatting on names like Hazbro.kids.us these domain names should be open game just like any other market.

**mole** · 12-07-2002, 10:53 PM

Blah, like a duck talking to a chicken! I am not implying that ordinary people can't register them to build responsible sites for children, I am just disappointed that people are discussing this second level domain like another speculative landrush.

This bill is a wise and necessary step to safeguard our children while they use computers and discover the great possibilities of the Internet," Bush continued. "Every site designated '.kids' will be a safe zone for children. The sites will be monitored for content, for safety, and all objectionable material will be removed."

The "Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002" woud prohibit chat rooms and instant messaging, unless they can be certified as safe, according to the new law. "Objectionable material" has not apparently been defined, as the Dot-Kids act amends the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act, which itself requires a registrar to be selected within 30 days of the Dot-Kids Act's passage.

The new law calls for that registry to conduct "appropriate procedures and actions to prevent minors and families who use the new domain from being targeted by adults and other children for predatory behavior, exploitation, or illegal actions

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...,748477,00.asp

**David G** · 12-07-2002, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by think .....as long as people aren't truly cybersquatting on names like Hazbro.kids.us these domain names should be open game just like any other market.

Think about this - you can't really cybersquat a name like hazbro.kids.us as it's a sub-domain and can only be used, activated and approved by the owner of kids.us - sub-domains can not be registered per-se.

**DryHeat** · 12-09-2002, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by RealNames

Think about this - you can't really cybersquat a name like hazbro.kids.us as it's a sub-domain and can only be used, activated and approved by the owner of kids.us - sub-domains can not be registered per-se.

That's probably true but the "speculation to the ninth degree" that was being actively discussed on another thread here & names regged and posted on Appraisal section a few days ago were primarily focusing on a very unique aspect of speculation; i..e. instead of shooting for hazbro.kids.us (possibly/probably TM issues) get HazbroKids.US (no dot between Hazbro & Kids) and then ideally develop the site to some extent. When Hazbro has its site up and running they'd probably like to get your site with "non-dotted" version of their name and would likely be willing to pay 5-10X the reg fee plus some additional costs. A safer examlpe would be to get into generic stuff such as GamesKids.US; ToysKids.US, etc with potential future buyers being those who would develop Games.Kids.US & Toys.Kids.US, respectively. I know the whole concept is bit strain just to think thru but I feel that it does have a viable shot at getting some good roi.