 |
.kids.us and the Definition of Hyperlinking |
|
 |
| |
 |
Related Links |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Options |
 |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
Violations of no-external-link rules (Score: 1) by BenEdelman on Tuesday, January 20 @ 18:59:59 EST (User Info | Send a Message) http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman.html | I agree that there are plenty of ways to circumvent the no-external-link rules.
Of course, another possible approach is just to include such links, the rules notwithstanding. I found external links on firstgov.kids.us and space.kids.us and submitted reports to that effect on October 14 and November 9, 2003, respectively. But, to NeuStar's credit, the problems were resolved promptly, within 24 hours as I recall. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: .kids.us and the Definition of Hyperlinking (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 @ 19:11:34 EST | I don't understand why this was done as a restriction at all. It seems that it would be much for effective to encourage Microsoft (pay them even; I presme that there was already some budget set up for this whole initiative) to add a feature in IE that will allow parents to restrict the browser to the .kids.us domain except with a password.
This would remove the need for any worries about hyperlinks and URLs and whether they can be put on the site. It might also give people an incentive to create sites on the domain, hoping to be already there when parents do start using the feature.
As long as Microsoft gets to be a monopoly, we might as well use the fact to our advantage. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Re: .kids.us and the Definition of Hyperlinking (Score: 1) by JimCYL on Wednesday, January 21 @ 13:44:57 EST (User Info | Send a Message) http://journals.aol.com/jimcyl/geeklaw/ | Part of the problem with using the kids.us websites, and probably one of the main reasons it hasn't caught on (and likely won't ever), is that it's incredibly difficult to actually get a page up there.
First of all, it's incredibly expensive. I believe Neustar charges something like $500 for the privilege of applying for a domain on kids.us. Compared to the cost that other domain name registrars charge, it's not suprising that kids.us is remarkably unpopular.
Second of all, Neustar's content review process takes weeks, and there's no guarantee that they will approve your website. As a test case, a John Marshall Law School professor submitted a website that included the text of FCC v. Pacifica, a supreme court opinion (the George Carlin "seven dirty words" case). Neustar rejected it.
Third, appealing a content review decision is nightmarish. First, it costs even more money. Second, you have to agree to abide by arbitration rules. Third, you have to agree to waive any right to sue Neustar in court. Fourth, like the original review process, it takes weeks.
The problem is that the Dot Kids Act imposes so many rules on the registrar. I wonder if it would have been better left to a private registrar tthird and fourth-level domains (like new.net, where I could register jimcyl.blog, which would be an alias for jimcyl.blog.new.net) who would impose contractual requirements on registrants and include penalties like forefeiture clauses. I don't see why this required a federal statute to implement here. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
|