.XXX Does Not Mark The Spot

Web Sex Domain Name Rejected For Adult Internet Sites Over Censorship Worries

(CBS/AP)  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. Paul Twomey, ICANN's chief executive, who had described the proposal this week as "clearly controversial, clearly polarizing" abstained from the vote but did not say why.

"We are extremely disappointed by the board's 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 (request for proposal), and makes a mockery of ICANN bylaws' prohibition of unjustifiable discriminatory treatment."

He added that ICM would pursue the matter further and when pressed by an Associated Press reporter if that could include a lawsuit against ICANN, Lawley said: "I would go so far as to say likely."

What is certain is that ICANN will no longer hear the proposal but that does not mean that an entirely new application could be drawn up and offered for consideration.

---

Tech Talk: Larry Magid agrees with decision to deny XXX domain. What do you think?

---

Nearly all of the board members who voted against approving the domain 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.

"My decision turned on one point and one point only," said board member Steve Goldstein ahead of the vote. "The last point in our board's resolution that under the revised agreement that we, ICANN, would be forced to assume ongoing management and oversight roles regarding the content and that is inconsistent with ICANN's technical mandate."

Lawley criticized ICANN board members who said they feared the domain would result in content management, telling the AP that "the part of the contract they are now claiming would lead them to content management was put in by them during the contract negotiations."

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.

"This application doesn't meet the request for proposals mainly on the supporting community," said board member Raimundo Beca of Chile, who voted against the domain. The adult industry, he added, "has been from the very beginning so split about this."

Porn sites opposed to ".xxx" were largely concerned that the domain name, while billed as voluntary, would make it easier for governments to later mandate its use and push sexual information into what the adult-entertainment industry terms an online ghetto.

CBS News tech analyst Larry Magid said that since the .xxx was voluntary, it might give a "false sense of security" to many.

"Despite years of advocacy on the part of its sponsors, I remain unconvinced that that the .XXX top level domain would have furthered the causes of child protection or free speech. It might have been effective had it been mandatory for all porn sites, but that would have brought up enormous free speech issues that many of us would not fathom. Because it would have been voluntary, there would continue to be porn sites with .com top level domains, possibly giving parents a false sense of security by believing that all porn was walled off,'' said Magid.

ICM though had said it would fight any government effort to compel its use and cited preregistrations of more than 76,000 names as evidence of support.

Religious groups worried that ".xxx" would legitimize and expand the number of adults sites, which more than a third of U.S. Internet users visit each month, according to comScore Media Metrix. The Web site measurement firm said 4 percent of all Web traffic and 2 percent of all time spent Web surfing involved an adult site.

It was the third time that ICANN rejected the proposal. The agency tabled and effectively rejected a similar proposal in 2000 out of fear the ".xxx" domain would force the body into content regulation.

ICM resubmitted its proposal in 2004, this time structuring it with a policy-setting organization to free ICANN of that task. But many board members worried that the language of the proposed contract was vague and could kick the task back to ICANN. The board rejected the 2004 proposal last May.

ICANN revived the proposal in January after ICM agreed to hire independent organizations to monitor porn sites' compliance with the new rules, which would be developed by a separate body called the International Foundation for Online Responsibility.

ICM revised it again a month later to clarify ICANN's enforcement abilities and to underscore the independence of the policy-making body.

[tucson23]

Robjk1:

"Censhorship" may not be a bad word (or a word at all) but censorship is bad for a variety of reasons.

We censor TV because the broadcast airwaves belong to the People (which is why you need a government license to broadcast). The internet, porn mags, newspapers, etc. are private organizations--a little thing called the 1st Amendment prevents the government from censoring them. You've heard of the 1st Amendment? Good.

truth_reason: The "exact reason" is just as stated. Someone at ICANN would have to decide if something was porn or not, and they don't want to be in that position. The Supreme Court's definition of obscenity includes the phrase "violates community standards," meaning something may be considered obscene in Salt Lake City but not in Las Vegas. How exactly is ICANN supposed to guage the community standards of the internet? It's an impossible task, yet you would call them fools for not taking it on? Seems like you're the fool here.

[michellem99-2009]

I think it should have its own address and marked, I do have my filters on, I don't allow any one to use my computer. I can't tell you to or not to veiw porn as that's your business. But children no way. I do feel porn should be banned on the web. Porn is trash.

[minminmin-2009]

I hear ya, anopinion1. But still, maybe somebody should work on a way to do that. If we can put a man on the moon...etc.

We don't put the cigarettes next to the candy bars in the super market...we should somehow wall off the porn to an 'adults only' domain. Certainly can't say I have the answer on how to do that, tho.

[anopinion1]

ok allgoood

how do they plan to enforce this now if they did do it???
go to other countries and send team america world police in their to save the day???
It could stop things being made in the US most likely but not worldwide.

[hawksprings]

I agree with your posts as well.
Porn is regulated and restricted everywhere else, why should the internet be any different? Why should porn pimps be allowed to freely roam the net, snatching up common expired addresses and make them porn sites so that an unsuspecting kid stumbles on to it. It's like having a clothing store go out of business and a porn shop moves in and keeps all the old signage and names pretending from the outside that they are a clothing store.

We need reasonable laws and policies to protect our kids from porn.
Come on liberals, DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN! IT TAKES A VILLAGE!

...

[truth_reason]

I agree allgood. Mark it so that you can better block it, makes perfect sence to me. I want to know the exact reason why the board put down the proposal. They were fools for doing so.

[robjk1-2009]

Amen to allgood34

[allgood34]

I think it is a great idea to move adult websites to their own domain. It would then be much easier to block these websites so children can't view graphic images with a few clicks of the mouse.

I know I have accidentally stumbled across some extremely graphic images while surfing the net that I wouldn't want my young son or daughter to see that and ask me what they are doing or why his hand is in her butt or whatever the picture was displaying.

I have nothing against adult content but parents should be able to easily filter their children from it without needing to be IT specialists tknow how to fine tune firewalls and web filtering applications on their PCs.

[robjk1-2009]

If they are not going to outlaw it, they should at least conifein it a *** domain. They censor tv why not internet??? censhorship is not bad word.