Erica Wass editor and contributing author "Addressing the World: National Identity and Internet Country Code Domains", (Rowman & Littlefield, October 2003) has a nice article on the .kid.us domain name space mandated last year by the US government.

"Ironically, it is the characteristics that make the .kids.us space remarkable that also create its uncertain future...

...the space is governed by two principal documents: a content policy and a governance policy. The content policy document defines the thirteen areas of content that are restricted from appearing in the space...Sites within .kids.us cannot link to sites outside of the .kids.us space; they also cannot incorporate interactive communications like chat rooms, instant messaging, discussion boards and e-mail...

...the majority of those who have registered sites have not yet made it through the content review processes. Despite having registered about 2,000 .kids.us domains, only seven have been activated...

The incentive to create a site within the .kids.us name space appears clear; it is a space directed toward children. It is a space created to enable children to be safe while surfing the Web. Many owners of sites directed toward children are now forced to reconcile this honorable goal with financial and theoretical concerns...

When Carol Myers, the owner of Stnicholas.kids.us, registered the domain, she already had developed a site at stnicholascenter.org and its .com variations. She says she wanted to be a part of the .kids.us space because she believes that parents should be careful about the media influences on their children. As a result, she paid $126 for each .kids.us name she registered, as well as the $250 per name content approval fee. She also bore the more hidden costs of hosting and design changes to fit the .kids.us regulations. "It is a big commitment, actually, to develop and maintain two sites," she says. The result, she says is that the kids.us site will be much more static than her main site. Myers worries that other non-profit sites, churches and other organizations that have a few excellent pages for children will not go through the hassle and expense of putting them on .kids.us...

Indeed, the restrictive linking and interactivity policies seem to turn a rich communications medium into just another example one-way communications. Why should children turn to the web, when they can access games on CD, video on TV, and text in various print media. While it is true that the ability to freely communicate can engender abuse, and, therefore, possible danger to children, it also enables a different type of learning and involvement. While such restrictive policies may provide protection for children, it also may insulate our children from the benefits of communicating online in a variety of ways with the rest of the world. "

Food for thought.