Welcome, Guest [Log In]
"XXX" DOMAIN NIXED
LISBON, Portugal — The agency that sets the Internet addressing guidelines influencing how people navigate the Web defeated a proposal Friday to give adult Web sites their own ".xxx" domain.
Many in the adult-entertainment industry and religious groups alike had criticized the plan, which the Canadian government also warned this week could leave the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers in the tricky business of content regulation.
The 9-5 decision by ICANN's board came nearly seven years after the proposal was first floated by ICM Registry LLC. It was the third time ICANN has rejected such a bid. One member abstained from voting.
"We are extremely disappointed by the boards action today," said Stuart Lawley, ICM's president and chief executive. "It is not supportable for any of the reasons articulated by the board, ignores the rules ICANN itself adopted for the RFP, and makes a mockery of ICANN by-laws' prohibition of unjustifiable discriminatory treatment."
He added that ICM would pursue the matter energetically.
Many of the board members said they were concerned about the possibility that ICANN could find itself in the content regulation business if the domain name was approved. Others criticized that, saying ICANN should not block new domains over fears like that, noting that local, state and national laws could be used to decide what is pornographic and what is not.
Other board members said they believed that opposition to the domain by the adult industry, including Web masters, content providers and others, was proof that the issue was divisive and that ".xxx" was not a welcome domain.
.xxx Domain Proposal Fails, x3 - Acton Institute PowerBlog wrote on March 30th 07 at 07:31AM
[...] .xxx Domain Proposal Fails, x3 Friday, March 30, 2007 The effort to create a top-level domain suffix for adult Web sites has failed, for the third time (HT: X3). ICANN voted 9-5 to defeat the proposal, which was roundly opposed by an unlikely alliance of religious groups and the adult entertainment industry. The proposal would have created a new “.xxx” suffix that would have allowed voluntary participation of adult content providers. Many in that line of work are concerned that such a voluntary program could become mandatory, “pushing them into a so-called online ghetto.” Religious groups are concerned that such a voluntary program would simply legitimate pornographic content on the Web without effectively segmenting objectionable content from the rest of the Internet. We’ve talked before about options for self-regulation that could function well in place of a dedicated domain suffix, such as an NSFW (not safe for work) HTML attribute. But as long as the “.xxx” domain proposal includes a voluntary “opt-in” for adult sites, don’t expect the unlikely alliance of religious activists and pornographers to dissolve. Defined tags for this entry: .xxx, icann, internet, pornography, regulation [...]
Josh wrote on March 30th 07 at 07:48AM
That actually would have probably done alot of good if it would have passed- it would make it so that kids wouldn't stumble on a porn site by typing one letter of a popular children's site wrong.
I mean the industry says they want to keep kids from porn but they're not really doing a great job of it with tactics like that....
I mean the industry says they want to keep kids from porn but they're not really doing a great job of it with tactics like that....
Matt wrote on March 30th 07 at 11:19AM
I'd like to see it passed..if all xxx sites had to be at {dot}xxx it would minimize the amount of sites just pop-up because you entered your url address wrong..
Jay in MEXICO wrote on March 30th 07 at 02:20PM
I think it would literally redifine what is considered pornography or not. It would bring into question nude artwork. They would obviously say that Playboy is not "porn" deserving of a .xxx domain. I think that the line of "what is pornographic" or not would become a lot clearer... and I think that many (what would not be .xxx) websites would push the envelope per say to stay as pornographic as possible, but without falling into that category of .xxx --- I also think that it would only promote a new wave of homemade easily accessed porn via YOUTUBE, GOOGLE, MYSPACE and other blogs and stuff like that. Considering there is almost zero regulation of private blogs I think many private blogs would then become MUCH MORE pornographic with the purpose of drawing people to the .xxx websites. While in theory I sort of like the idea of a .xxx - I think it would be almost entirely impractical as the Internet Porn business would absolutely find techincalities and ways around things. I don't know though... just my opinion
Suricou Raven wrote on March 30th 07 at 05:54PM
It wouldn't have worked, and just about everyone knew it.
If .xxx were approved, the porn sites would still remain on .com. Forcing them to move would be legally impossible due to the international nature of the internet - if a porn-site doesn't like the local laws, they just relocate their server. As well as that, ICANN certinly didn't want to get stuck with the job of deciding what is and isn't porn, and they couldn't trust anyone else to do it either.
Its exactly the situation that Jay thought of that ICANN was worrying about. What one person calls porn, another calls a dirty joke, or some bad-taste political commentary, or sex-education. Who gets to make the call?
The first woman in the US to published a book on contraception was imprisoned for the crime of 'obscenity' - because at that time, just acknowledging the existance of human reproductive anatomy was considered obscene.
It wouldn't really help keep children from coming across porn, because not all porn companies are alike - some of them are quite respectable, and very careful to ensure that children dont happen across their page. But others - usually the ones located outside the US - will market agressively and misleadingly to lure in as many potential customers as they can. The former ones children do not need protecting from, the the latter would not be put off by the creation of an xxx domain.
The *only* group that has been campaigning for .xxx is the registar that stands to make a huge amount of money off it, by selling the domains at high prices both to porn companies, and to non-porn companies who just want their trademarked domain to ensure noone else gets it.
If .xxx were approved, the porn sites would still remain on .com. Forcing them to move would be legally impossible due to the international nature of the internet - if a porn-site doesn't like the local laws, they just relocate their server. As well as that, ICANN certinly didn't want to get stuck with the job of deciding what is and isn't porn, and they couldn't trust anyone else to do it either.
Its exactly the situation that Jay thought of that ICANN was worrying about. What one person calls porn, another calls a dirty joke, or some bad-taste political commentary, or sex-education. Who gets to make the call?
The first woman in the US to published a book on contraception was imprisoned for the crime of 'obscenity' - because at that time, just acknowledging the existance of human reproductive anatomy was considered obscene.
It wouldn't really help keep children from coming across porn, because not all porn companies are alike - some of them are quite respectable, and very careful to ensure that children dont happen across their page. But others - usually the ones located outside the US - will market agressively and misleadingly to lure in as many potential customers as they can. The former ones children do not need protecting from, the the latter would not be put off by the creation of an xxx domain.
The *only* group that has been campaigning for .xxx is the registar that stands to make a huge amount of money off it, by selling the domains at high prices both to porn companies, and to non-porn companies who just want their trademarked domain to ensure noone else gets it.
adam mclane wrote on March 30th 07 at 08:23PM
Suricou, that's where you are wrong. If ICANN had made it part of their RAA than the registrars would be held responsible for violations of their agreement. So, for instance... if godaddy.com (a registrar) found out that www.website1.com was displaying pornography and didn't respond in a timely manner, then ICANN has the ability to end godaddy.com's ability to register domain and also delist what is already registered.
It really has nothing to do with state/local/federal/international laws as ICANN is not governed by a government entity. That's why this was so crucial.
You may say, "Well, ICANN doesn't want to be in the business of deciding what is and isn't porn." That's a good point. But by making it the registrars job, they would be forced to move porn sites that were reported to them by the general public as pornographic.
Moving all porn sites to .xxx is a great solution also because it would give the ISP the ability to help subscribers prevent pornographic content from even being distributed to them. This would go a step beyond a filter. This would be a filter from the ISP level... and that is a solution.
It really has nothing to do with state/local/federal/international laws as ICANN is not governed by a government entity. That's why this was so crucial.
You may say, "Well, ICANN doesn't want to be in the business of deciding what is and isn't porn." That's a good point. But by making it the registrars job, they would be forced to move porn sites that were reported to them by the general public as pornographic.
Moving all porn sites to .xxx is a great solution also because it would give the ISP the ability to help subscribers prevent pornographic content from even being distributed to them. This would go a step beyond a filter. This would be a filter from the ISP level... and that is a solution.
.xxx Domain Proposal Fails, x3 « The Offical Page of JD Styles wrote on March 31st 07 at 01:14AM
[...] Friday, March 30, 2007 The effort to create a top-level domain suffix for adult Web sites has failed, for the third time (HT: X3). ICANN voted 9-5 to defeat the proposal, which was roundly opposed by an unlikely alliance of religious groups and the adult entertainment industry. [...]
Suricou Raven wrote on April 1st 07 at 04:01AM
"Suricou, that's where you are wrong. If ICANN had made it part of their RAA than the registrars would be held responsible for violations of their agreement. So, for instance... if godaddy.com (a registrar) found out that www.website1.com was displaying pornography and didn't respond in a timely manner, then ICANN has the ability to end godaddy.com's ability to register domain and also delist what is already registered."
Except that there wasn't any policy of banning porn from .com, and even if there were it would be unenforceable due to the jurisdictional problem.
Further, what if godaddy.com decided that the site wasn't pornographic, but there was a lot of public pressure (letter-writing campaigns, call for action from politicians) who said it was - then ICANN gets left with the decision.
"It really has nothing to do with state/local/federal/international laws as ICANN is not governed by a government entity. That's why this was so crucial."
Actually its regulated by the US government. Department of Commerce, if I recall correctly. Its nominally independent, but the DoC supplies the funding, hosts the root servers and occasionally applies pressure. During the first .xxx decision there was a minor scandle when a leaked memo showed the DoC threatening to revoke ICANNs authority if it approved the new domain.
ICANN does not control all the domains though. It could set policy for .com, but all of the country-specific domains are under the management of their respective countries. Even if .com were cleared up, that still leaves all of those as porn-havens.
"Moving all porn sites to .xxx is a great solution also because it would give the ISP the ability to help subscribers prevent pornographic content from even being distributed to them. This would go a step beyond a filter. This would be a filter from the ISP level... and that is a solution."
Which raises the free-speech issue. Porn is not the most inteligent of speech, but it is speech nontheless. If ISPs offer an opt-in porn filtering service, then immediately there will be extremally vocal calls to make it an opt-out service: .xxx blocked for all customers who dont explicitly request it. To protect the children, of course. Thus those who want to view a class of speech will have to jump through hoops to get it. As well as being cencorship, this will also put .xxx sites as such a great commercial disadvantage they will be forced to return to .com or a country-specific TLD.
The whole idea of .xxx is ineffective unless all the other domains can be made porn-free, and this is simply not possible.
Except that there wasn't any policy of banning porn from .com, and even if there were it would be unenforceable due to the jurisdictional problem.
Further, what if godaddy.com decided that the site wasn't pornographic, but there was a lot of public pressure (letter-writing campaigns, call for action from politicians) who said it was - then ICANN gets left with the decision.
"It really has nothing to do with state/local/federal/international laws as ICANN is not governed by a government entity. That's why this was so crucial."
Actually its regulated by the US government. Department of Commerce, if I recall correctly. Its nominally independent, but the DoC supplies the funding, hosts the root servers and occasionally applies pressure. During the first .xxx decision there was a minor scandle when a leaked memo showed the DoC threatening to revoke ICANNs authority if it approved the new domain.
ICANN does not control all the domains though. It could set policy for .com, but all of the country-specific domains are under the management of their respective countries. Even if .com were cleared up, that still leaves all of those as porn-havens.
"Moving all porn sites to .xxx is a great solution also because it would give the ISP the ability to help subscribers prevent pornographic content from even being distributed to them. This would go a step beyond a filter. This would be a filter from the ISP level... and that is a solution."
Which raises the free-speech issue. Porn is not the most inteligent of speech, but it is speech nontheless. If ISPs offer an opt-in porn filtering service, then immediately there will be extremally vocal calls to make it an opt-out service: .xxx blocked for all customers who dont explicitly request it. To protect the children, of course. Thus those who want to view a class of speech will have to jump through hoops to get it. As well as being cencorship, this will also put .xxx sites as such a great commercial disadvantage they will be forced to return to .com or a country-specific TLD.
The whole idea of .xxx is ineffective unless all the other domains can be made porn-free, and this is simply not possible.
Suricou Raven wrote on April 1st 07 at 04:27PM
Another problem I can see would be .xxx being used as a place to shove unpopular sites. A chat service, an image bord, a forum - any place where the main objective of the site isn't pornography, but where a sizable amount turns up posted by users anyway - may be forced to relocate by, say, a group of angry parents threatening legal action. This would be quite detrimental the site as all schools, most workplaces and many ISPs block it. Small sites would be most likely to suffer this, as they wouldn't be able to risk a frivlous legal action.
This situation worries me in particular, because I use many services (Such as Furrymuck*) which have a sexual element, but are intended mostly for socialisation. I have a lot of good friends there, but many of the users are afraid that just one outraged prude could have the power to shut the service down by writing threatening letters to the ISP or lauching a groundless but very expensive suite. .xxx would give those outraged prudes even more power to cencor all those services they disapprove of.
* Go on, give it a try... meet interesting people.
This situation worries me in particular, because I use many services (Such as Furrymuck*) which have a sexual element, but are intended mostly for socialisation. I have a lot of good friends there, but many of the users are afraid that just one outraged prude could have the power to shut the service down by writing threatening letters to the ISP or lauching a groundless but very expensive suite. .xxx would give those outraged prudes even more power to cencor all those services they disapprove of.
* Go on, give it a try... meet interesting people.
nvcsmgfar lyoz wrote on April 14th 07 at 07:43PM
xmkd vihgo hanlvk dmyrwciuz gkzav erlf uqpgyckv
usaththkur wrote on June 23rd 07 at 02:42AM
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! iteetuknhdnhz
buy songs for ipods wrote on July 3rd 07 at 03:48AM
Hey you have a nice blog and some great stuff here. Been here a couple times and thought I should at least post something...
