Porn Sites Seeking XXX Web Domain

(CBS)  The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) board at its meeting Friday will consider a proposal from ICM Registry for adult sites to use the .xxx top-level domain instead of or in addition to .com.

This is hardly the first time ICANN has dealt with this issue. It rejected similar proposals in 2000, again in 2006 and most recently in 2007.

In a telephone interview Wednesday night from Nairobi, ICM President Stuart Lawley said he successfully appealed the 2007 decision, paving the way for ICANN to reconsider the proposal on its merits. (Click here for podcast)

The proposal has been a hot button for years, uniting some conservatives and some free-speech advocates in opposition to it. The conservative Family Research Council, for example, opposed the idea in a 2005 press release, arguing that "pornographers will be given even more opportunities to flood our homes, libraries, and society with pornography through the .xxx domain."

But the American Civil Liberties Union also had concerns. In 2004, ACLU's Barry Steinhardt told CNET's Declan McCullagh that "there are nations all over the world that will undoubtedly try to force Web sites into the .xxx (top-level domain) or to block Web sites in it that they somehow view as offensive." Steinhardt worried that "it will become a worldwide red-light district for the Internet, into which speakers who have free-expression rights and should be able to reach a mass audience will be forced." (Steinhardt has since retired from the ACLU and is now at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society.)

As an Internet safety advocate, my concern about .xxx is that it could give parents a false sense of security. True, it would be very easy to configure browsers or filters to automatically block sites designated as .xxx, but since this is a voluntary program, there would be nothing to stop adult site operators from also using .com. It would be like setting up a red-light district in a community while also allowing adult entertainment establishments to operate in residential shopping centers.

In our interview, Lawley responded to this concern: "It's not a great secret and everyone is aware that there is a lot of adult content on the Internet and... it was never my job or the job of .xxx to try to eradicate that." He expressed hope that "it would become the domain of choice for adult providers because of the benefits it would provide... The idea that this would be a universal panacea and cure-all for the issue adult content on the Web was never the intent."

Lawley called .xxx "an attempt at credible self-regulation by engaging with other impacted stake holders." He said that adult sites that use .xxx would be subject to "best business practices" that prohibit child pornography and malicious software. It would also be "mandatory for .xxx sites to label their sites with machine readable tags. He called it a "win win win situation" for the adult entertainment providers, consumers of adult entertainment, and parents who wished to keep their kids away from adult content.

While I respect Lawley's sincerity, I'm still not convinced .xxx is in the best interest of child protection or free speech. As Lawley admits, this isn't a panacea and, unfortunately, there are no other silver bullets when it comes to keeping kids from wandering into inappropriate online areas.

Parents do have the option of installing content filters which are a lot better than they were when the idea for .xxx domains was first introduced, but even those are far from fool-proof. Until someone comes up with a better solution, my recommendation is that parents be with young children while they are online, check-in frequently with preteens and work with children of all ages - especially teenagers - to fine-tune that filter that runs between their ears.

[ToolMangler1]

Porn sites that are given a triple x extension will for a short time be unreachable by Kids. It will seem the best way to handle sites that should not be viewed by kids. But as things sort themselves out, Advertisers will find that more and more viewers tend toward the .xxx domains. As time goes by there will be a point when material that is currently available on the net will only be available on the .xxx sites because that is where the 'money' is.

[Xavcore]

No way! They haven't to allow this request. The porn occuped already a large place in the Internet. If that continues, all of what you will see, that will be porn all the time.

I don't understand, human being seems to be regressing...

[parisdakar]

Let's get real. I've seen my share of porn, but if porn was to disappear from the face of the earth it would NOT be a bad thing. Anyone trying to facilitate the existence of pornography needs to stop and think for a second. There is nothing redeeming about the porn industry.

[ccdsswrkr08]

Actually pornography does have it's uses (as long as it's not kiddie porn). I know of quite a few marriage counselors and therapists who often tell couples who are having intimacy problems, to watch porn together. From what my colleagues have told me, it's been pretty successful in stimulating intimacy between married couples.

[borgward17]

It's a great idea. Many porn-sellers will flock to the .xxx designation because that identifying code should make it easier for porn-hounds to find them.

By the same token, that identifying code will make it easier for PARENTS to block the creeps.

Now if only the accursed game sites, where today's kids are wasting away and turning into balls of fat, would just adopt a similar tactic....

[barbaram99]

I am 55. And no I was not allowed to watch TV growing up. I do have a TV. Parents are there to raise their children.. Ponn should be marked with xxx. The TV computer is not a baby sitter. It is not..I hate porn. It is useless.

[culturechang]

They will get it this time. Last time, the Bush admin would not do this because it would "legitimize" porn. Well, porn is already legal and this would make it easier to police for kiddie porn. The Bush admin did everything with its head in the sand.

[quapawsix]

How about we police what our kids are watching parents. You have that control the Government can't control itself and you expect it to control what your kids are watching. And the people that don't want to see this all you have to do is click Delete button. Problem solved.

[sean66x]

The article answers its own question. If the world wide web allowed the suffix .xxx, then program filters will deny the site to computers using the denial software. Marketers for the x-rated industry want the suffix. Why not deploy more control?

[stychokiller]

@sean66x:
Pr0n filters are pretty much useless, look up the Scunthorpe article on Wikipedia, for example. You Puritanical call for "more control" is clbuttic! (look that up also!)