- Related Stories
-
Will the U.N. run the Internet?
July 11, 2005 -
The politics of .xxx
June 6, 2005 -
Is the new .xxx domain a good idea?
June 3, 2005 -
Porn-friendly '.xxx' domains approved
June 1, 2005 -
XXX, on a small screen near you
December 30, 2004 -
New Internet domains in the works
December 13, 2004 -
The battle over triple 'x'
March 22, 2004
Michael Gallagher, assistant secretary at the Commerce Department, has asked for a hold to be placed on the contract to run the new top-level domain until the .xxx suffix can receive further scrutiny. The domain was scheduled to receive final approval Tuesday.
"The Department of Commerce has received nearly 6,000 letters and e-mails from individuals expressing concern about the impact of pornography on families and children," Gallagher said in a letter that was made public on Monday.
The sudden high-level interest in what has historically been an obscure process has placed the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in an uncomfortable position. ICANN approved the concept of an .xxx domain in June and approval of ICM Registry's contract to run the suffix was expected this week.
Other governments also have been applying pressure to ICANN in a last-minute bid to head off .xxx. A letter from ICANN's government advisory group sent Friday asks for a halt to "allow time for additional governmental and public policy concerns to be expressed before reaching a final decision."
ICM Registry--the for-profit company in Florida that plans to operate the .xxx registry--has told ICANN it would agree to a month's delay in the approval process to permit it to "address the concerns" raised by the Bush administration and other governments.
"We're focusing our attention on the Department of Commerce and ensuring that we're building this as a voluntary (top-level domain) for responsible companies," Jason Hendeles, founder of ICM Registry, said in a telephone interview on Monday.
Hendeles said that although the .xxx application is "already approved," his company is willing to try to allay fears about legitimizing pornography. "The industry has existed for a long time and is growing internationally and is doing what it can to fight child porn and to be a responsible industry," he said. "This is an opportunity for all the different voices to come together."
ICANN's delicate position
The multinational pressure, unprecedented in ICANN's seven-year history, places the organization in a delicate position. If it backs down, ICANN could be perceived as bowing to political interference--but if not, it could alienate government officials just as the United Nations is becoming more interested in taking over key Internet functions.
ICANN has not said what will happen next. John Jeffrey, ICANN's general counsel, said in an e-mail that "all of this correspondence and any other correspondence received will be given to the board for their consideration relating to this matter."
After ICANN's vote to approve .xxx, conservative groups in the United States called on their supporters to ask the Commerce Department to block the new suffix. The Family Research Council, for instance, warned that "pornographers will be given even more opportunities to flood our homes, libraries and society with pornography through the .xxx domain."
"The volume of correspondence opposed to creation of a .xxx (domain) is unprecedented," according to the Commerce Department's Gallagher. "Given the extent of the negative reaction, I request that the board (provide) adequate additional time for these concerns to be voiced and addressed before any additional action takes place."
Michael Froomkin, a law professor at the University of Miami, said it's not surprising ICANN's board has found itself in a pickle. "They're supposed to be picked for technical competence," Froomkin said. "They're not elected. They're not representative of anything much. Who would pick this group of people to make decisions about how we feel about (domains) with sexual connotations?"
At a recent United Nations summit on the Internet, Brazil's representative charged that ICANN was not responsive enough to the needs of developing countries: "For those that are still wondering what triple-X means, let's be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names."
ICM Registry has proposed that it would handle the technical aspects of running the master database of .xxx sex sites. A second, nonprofit organization called the International Foundation for Online Responsibility would be in charge of setting the rules for .xxx.
ICANN's vote this year represents an abrupt turnabout from the group's earlier stance. In November 2000, the ICANN staff objected to the .xxx domain and rejected ICM Registry's first application.
At the time, politicians lambasted ICANN's move. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., demanded to know why ICANN didn't approve .xxx "as a means of protecting our kids from the awful, awful filth, which is sometimes widespread on the Internet." Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., told (click for PDF) a federal commission that .xxx was necessary to force adult Webmasters to "abide by the same standard as the proprietor of an X-rated movie theater."
A government report from a few years ago hints that the Bush administration could choose unilaterally to block .xxx from being added to the Internet's master database of domains. The report notes that the Commerce Department has "reserved final policy control over the authoritative root server."
See more CNET content tagged:
domain,
Bush Administration,
porn,
concern,
government
porn. Gee, pornography has been around for a looooooong
time. Like try FOREVER! They found pornography, and an
address to "Delias' Brothel" in Pompeii. You might remember
that famous place that was covered up by a volcano.
Look, whether you are for or against an pornography, a domain
is easy regulate on your own computer. Biggest case in point is
you can prevent access to an ENTIRE domain, instead of having
to keep a database of moving targets (pornography links), that
can be located ANYWHERE.
DAMN, JUST HOW STUPID IS OUR CURRENT ADMINISTRATION?!!
These right-wing religious chuckleheads never cease to amaze me. You'd think they'd WANT a way to get porn out of the root domains that everyone knows and therefore is more easily found... not to mention harder to track down and regulate. "Short-sighted" is right on this one...
Quite the contrary.
I am so happy that our government did this. Think of all the issues here...
The fact that porn has been around forever is quite irrelevent.
Remember, there would have been no requirements for adult materials to use a .xxx domain. As a matter of fact, the promoters of the new .xxx domain. Their stated policy is as follows...
"ICM insists it would fight any government efforts to compel its use by adult Web sites, but the existence of ".xxx" would certainly make the prospect easier.
"There are going to be pressures" to mandate it once available, said Marjorie Heins, coordinator of the Free Expression Policy Project at New York University's law school. Federal lawmakers have proposed such requirements in the past.
Robert Corn-Revere, a lawyer hired by ICM to address free-speech issues, said the company has pledged $250,000 for a legal defense fund to keep ".xxx" voluntary, and he notes that courts have struck down efforts to make movie ratings mandatory."
Their proposed board would have 1 representative for children's rights and three from the adult industry, the domain business, and the free speech lobby. What does that tell you about their priorities. I'm sorry but although there are merits to separating adult content, this was not the way and these were not the people to do it with.
The administration needs to get its head out of its ass!
You are probably the same fools that believe the "can spam" bill was going to save us all.
Companies outside of the US are not going to ahere to US law.
You fools
Kieran Mullen
Portland OR
porn. Gee, pornography has been around for a looooooong
time. Like try FOREVER! They found pornography, and an
address to "Delias' Brothel" in Pompeii. You might remember
that famous place that was covered up by a volcano.
Look, whether you are for or against an pornography, a domain
is easy regulate on your own computer. Biggest case in point is
you can prevent access to an ENTIRE domain, instead of having
to keep a database of moving targets (pornography links), that
can be located ANYWHERE.
DAMN, JUST HOW STUPID IS OUR CURRENT ADMINISTRATION?!!
These right-wing religious chuckleheads never cease to amaze me. You'd think they'd WANT a way to get porn out of the root domains that everyone knows and therefore is more easily found... not to mention harder to track down and regulate. "Short-sighted" is right on this one...
Quite the contrary.
I am so happy that our government did this. Think of all the issues here...
The fact that porn has been around forever is quite irrelevent.
Remember, there would have been no requirements for adult materials to use a .xxx domain. As a matter of fact, the promoters of the new .xxx domain. Their stated policy is as follows...
"ICM insists it would fight any government efforts to compel its use by adult Web sites, but the existence of ".xxx" would certainly make the prospect easier.
"There are going to be pressures" to mandate it once available, said Marjorie Heins, coordinator of the Free Expression Policy Project at New York University's law school. Federal lawmakers have proposed such requirements in the past.
Robert Corn-Revere, a lawyer hired by ICM to address free-speech issues, said the company has pledged $250,000 for a legal defense fund to keep ".xxx" voluntary, and he notes that courts have struck down efforts to make movie ratings mandatory."
Their proposed board would have 1 representative for children's rights and three from the adult industry, the domain business, and the free speech lobby. What does that tell you about their priorities. I'm sorry but although there are merits to separating adult content, this was not the way and these were not the people to do it with.
The administration needs to get its head out of its ass!
You are probably the same fools that believe the "can spam" bill was going to save us all.
Companies outside of the US are not going to ahere to US law.
You fools
Kieran Mullen
Portland OR
them that there is already a "virtual red light district". .xxx just
makes a map entry for it so crossing into it is a matter of design on
the the surfer's part, rather than the webmaster's.
My complaint is there no way to force migrate all those sites.
Theocratic asswits, the lot of 'em.
Think of the kids!
;)
them that there is already a "virtual red light district". .xxx just
makes a map entry for it so crossing into it is a matter of design on
the the surfer's part, rather than the webmaster's.
My complaint is there no way to force migrate all those sites.
Theocratic asswits, the lot of 'em.
Think of the kids!
;)
makes no sense. If you relegated pornography to a .xxx domain,
then you could easily block such domains from computers in,
say, schools, the workplace, public libraries and the rooms of
adolescents. So creating a .xxx would actually help you keep
pornography in check.
Of course, in their squeamishness over all things related to s-e-
x, the Bushies can't see the forest for the trees. What a shame
we don't have real leadership in our government right now.
This new domain would do nothing but give pornographers more respect than they deserve. ICANN blew it on this one and fortunately people were smart enough to let our government know.
What would a domain like this say about the US. We're already facing image problems all over the world who think that we export more filth than anything else. Why treat porno sites as special? I don't see that at all.
http://news.com.com/5208-1028-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=8787&messageID=62612&start=-188
This was a domain that would be run for purveyors of porn and who are committed to never
makes no sense. If you relegated pornography to a .xxx domain,
then you could easily block such domains from computers in,
say, schools, the workplace, public libraries and the rooms of
adolescents. So creating a .xxx would actually help you keep
pornography in check.
Of course, in their squeamishness over all things related to s-e-
x, the Bushies can't see the forest for the trees. What a shame
we don't have real leadership in our government right now.
This new domain would do nothing but give pornographers more respect than they deserve. ICANN blew it on this one and fortunately people were smart enough to let our government know.
What would a domain like this say about the US. We're already facing image problems all over the world who think that we export more filth than anything else. Why treat porno sites as special? I don't see that at all.
http://news.com.com/5208-1028-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=8787&messageID=62612&start=-188
This was a domain that would be run for purveyors of porn and who are committed to never
The biggest porn sites would never leave their dot.com addresses unless they were required to do so and the proposers of this new domain were committed to ensuring that this would never happen.
See the quote below from a recent statement by the proposers of this new domain (ICM)...
"ICM insists it would fight any government efforts to compel its use by adult Web sites, but the existence of ".xxx" would certainly make the prospect easier.
"There are going to be pressures" to mandate it once available, said Marjorie Heins, coordinator of the Free Expression Policy Project at New York University's law school. Federal lawmakers have proposed such requirements in the past.
Robert Corn-Revere, a lawyer hired by ICM to address free-speech issues, said the company has pledged $250,000 for a legal defense fund to keep ".xxx" voluntary, and he notes that courts have struck down efforts to make movie ratings mandatory."
*source: from http://tinyurl.com/akcpf
Their proposed board for their foundation would have had 1 representative for children's rights and three from the adult industry, the domain business, and the free speech lobby.
*source: http://tinyurl.com/dczpe
What does that tell you about their priorities? I'm sorry but although there are merits to separating adult content, this was not the way to do it.
I'm glad that the Bush administration stopped the wolves from protecting the hen house. Too many others were not so astute.
In summary, we WANT a simple way like this to keep the junk out of our homes.
else, like make it compensatory, who cares what has been said
about the movie industry, that has no bearing here.
This should go thru, the Bush should keep their dirty noses out
of it, they stick as it is. Either way, it should be interesting to see
if other country don't get involve in this, personally, the US has
to much control of this, and need to give some of that control so
that the internet does not become another casualty of the
Republican, considering one minute they want it and nother
minute they are freeking out.
The biggest porn sites would never leave their dot.com addresses unless they were required to do so and the proposers of this new domain were committed to ensuring that this would never happen.
See the quote below from a recent statement by the proposers of this new domain (ICM)...
"ICM insists it would fight any government efforts to compel its use by adult Web sites, but the existence of ".xxx" would certainly make the prospect easier.
"There are going to be pressures" to mandate it once available, said Marjorie Heins, coordinator of the Free Expression Policy Project at New York University's law school. Federal lawmakers have proposed such requirements in the past.
Robert Corn-Revere, a lawyer hired by ICM to address free-speech issues, said the company has pledged $250,000 for a legal defense fund to keep ".xxx" voluntary, and he notes that courts have struck down efforts to make movie ratings mandatory."
*source: from http://tinyurl.com/akcpf
Their proposed board for their foundation would have had 1 representative for children's rights and three from the adult industry, the domain business, and the free speech lobby.
*source: http://tinyurl.com/dczpe
What does that tell you about their priorities? I'm sorry but although there are merits to separating adult content, this was not the way to do it.
I'm glad that the Bush administration stopped the wolves from protecting the hen house. Too many others were not so astute.
In summary, we WANT a simple way like this to keep the junk out of our homes.
else, like make it compensatory, who cares what has been said
about the movie industry, that has no bearing here.
This should go thru, the Bush should keep their dirty noses out
of it, they stick as it is. Either way, it should be interesting to see
if other country don't get involve in this, personally, the US has
to much control of this, and need to give some of that control so
that the internet does not become another casualty of the
Republican, considering one minute they want it and nother
minute they are freeking out.
their .com domains are worth tens, hundreds, and some millions of
dollars. There also is no guarantee that the owner of a .com will get
the .xxx
If they do require it, who will be the one that decides what is and is
not pornographic? There is the obvious, but there is also a lot
where there would be disagreement.
Existing adult sites would be stupid to move from thier dot.com domains and will never do that unless and until it is required.
On a side note, I've always believed that we should just use a domain called .adu (for adult) and that way we could put legitimate medical or adult content as well as the porn. It would just be an adult area for all content that is not appropriate for kids and without the stigma that is associated with the term .xxx.
Lastly, in the US, we will probably never be able to agree with all cultures about what is considered porn, but we should at least try to take the high road and set the best example and one that is truly indicative of our culture. If frieking .xxx is the answer, I wouldn't be proud to be an American.
It's not that difficult to decide what is porn and what is not. We can just use the same standards that we use on public tv. That's all... and for those that want to view adult content, place it in a .adu or .adult section of the Internet. They can still view it and those of us that don't want to can TRULY filter it out for us and our kids.
This is the only way to do it without infringing on people's rights to free expression. Just create the zone BUT REQUIRE IT.
their .com domains are worth tens, hundreds, and some millions of
dollars. There also is no guarantee that the owner of a .com will get
the .xxx
If they do require it, who will be the one that decides what is and is
not pornographic? There is the obvious, but there is also a lot
where there would be disagreement.
Existing adult sites would be stupid to move from thier dot.com domains and will never do that unless and until it is required.
On a side note, I've always believed that we should just use a domain called .adu (for adult) and that way we could put legitimate medical or adult content as well as the porn. It would just be an adult area for all content that is not appropriate for kids and without the stigma that is associated with the term .xxx.
Lastly, in the US, we will probably never be able to agree with all cultures about what is considered porn, but we should at least try to take the high road and set the best example and one that is truly indicative of our culture. If frieking .xxx is the answer, I wouldn't be proud to be an American.
It's not that difficult to decide what is porn and what is not. We can just use the same standards that we use on public tv. That's all... and for those that want to view adult content, place it in a .adu or .adult section of the Internet. They can still view it and those of us that don't want to can TRULY filter it out for us and our kids.
This is the only way to do it without infringing on people's rights to free expression. Just create the zone BUT REQUIRE IT.
Anyway, I don't see what the big deal is with the .xxx domain. I mean, almost any firewall can block any domain -- .com, .net, .org, et cetera -- with just a few clicks. I could go to download.com and pick a handful of freeware firewalls that'll get the job done.
I think these multi-million dollar companies on dot-coms could register the same name under the .xxx (john-doe.com to john-doe.xxx, for example), renew the old domain name yearly, and simply redirect the end user to the site. If their firewall holds up, the person won't even make it past the front page.
Besides, any legit company will have cover-ups of anything inappropriate. And you can't say that's not enough; are you familiar with the term bikini?
The fact of the matter is that there's porn everywhere, from dot-coms to org, net, co.uk, jp, dk, tk... you name it, it's there. So what's the big deal with this new domain that actually tells you what the content is? Afterall, how many of us have stumbled on whitehouse.com without knowing any better? (fyi, years ago it was a porn site; chances are that every 4th grader who had internet access accidently visited that site)
Anyway, I don't see what the big deal is with the .xxx domain. I mean, almost any firewall can block any domain -- .com, .net, .org, et cetera -- with just a few clicks. I could go to download.com and pick a handful of freeware firewalls that'll get the job done.
I think these multi-million dollar companies on dot-coms could register the same name under the .xxx (john-doe.com to john-doe.xxx, for example), renew the old domain name yearly, and simply redirect the end user to the site. If their firewall holds up, the person won't even make it past the front page.
Besides, any legit company will have cover-ups of anything inappropriate. And you can't say that's not enough; are you familiar with the term bikini?
The fact of the matter is that there's porn everywhere, from dot-coms to org, net, co.uk, jp, dk, tk... you name it, it's there. So what's the big deal with this new domain that actually tells you what the content is? Afterall, how many of us have stumbled on whitehouse.com without knowing any better? (fyi, years ago it was a porn site; chances are that every 4th grader who had internet access accidently visited that site)
They will sue the web sites into changing it's address and then force the blocking of them somehow.
What's next? .gop and .dem? each blocking each other? or .withus and .againstus?
A .xxx domain makes censorship easier.
As simple as that. It does not serve any useful purpose. Besides, the internet knows no borders so it's impossible to regulate that. As usual, only innocents and bystanders would be hurt (like in most wars between factions)
They will sue the web sites into changing it's address and then force the blocking of them somehow.
What's next? .gop and .dem? each blocking each other? or .withus and .againstus?
A .xxx domain makes censorship easier.
As simple as that. It does not serve any useful purpose. Besides, the internet knows no borders so it's impossible to regulate that. As usual, only innocents and bystanders would be hurt (like in most wars between factions)
- These politicians just...
-
by Harfeld Bilgewing
August 16, 2005 7:49 AM PDT
- Don't want their wives to be able to spot those .xxx domains in their browser history.
-
Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 6 pages (229 Comments)