backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by rdeegvainl.. on Apr 2 at 10:54 PM

ICANN rejects the creation of an .XXX domain for the third time

An international agency today once again rejected the creation of an .XXX domain for web sites that contain adult content.  The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) voted down the proposal by ICM Registry LLC in a 9-5 vote -- ICANN is responsible for managing the domain-name address system for the Internet.  The latest vote marks the third time that ICANN denied a proposal for a universal .XXX domain.

"[The] decision was the result of very careful scrutiny and consideration of all the arguments," said Dr. Vinton Cerf, ICANN chairman.  

One of the members disclosed that he voted against the .XXX domain because it would not be able to keep children from being protected by adult content.  A "large part of the community thinks that if we approve dot-xxx, all that material ... will magically move into dot-xxx, and therefore children will be protected, because it will be easy to filter.  That, in my opinion, is not going to happen," said Roberto Gaetono, an ICANN board member.

Another member of the ICANN board criticized the agency for being too timid when it comes to expanding and working with controversial topics.  Similar arguments took form when the comittee voted against the top-level domain last year.

The .XXX registrar, ICM Registry, Inc., filed a lawsuit against ICANN last year after the March 2006 rejection. ICM has publically announced it will likely pursue further legal action against ICANN in the wake of this newest announcement.

If the proposal clears ICANN in the future -- which is unlikely -- the .XXX domain would be available on a voluntary basis.  ICM Registry will be able to submit a new proposal to ICANN for the next round of applications. 


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

.XXX domain
By biohazard420420 on 3/31/2007 1:53:07 AM , Rating: 1
I have actually always been in favor if a .xxx TLD even before it was being discussed. I understand all the freedom of speech arguments but it is really not limiting their speech unless you call filtering that type of site taking away their free speech. I am by no means a prude I enjoy porn from time to time (not that any of you want to know that) but I think it would be good to allow parents the ability to set pretty much one TLD to block and get it all.

I know there are many companies who have been using .com TLD's for years for thier sites but I think there could be some ways to work out a compromise to route traffic to the new urls for a set period of time, I am thinking in the years to avoid undue harm to their business.

Then there is the issue of what constitutes porn or adult material and again I think that could be worked out over time to give a decent enough set of criteria to determine what is and what is not adult material and then leave the rest of the gray area up to companies like net nanny to deal with. IT would just make it easier for parents and schools to filter out most not all material that could be deemed inappropiate for children. while the solution is far from perfect it would give parents the option of blocking out say 75 percent of material pretty easily yet still allow the sites to operate freely as they wish. I think the costs of moving to the new .xxx domain should also be covered in someway to put as little burden on the sites to switch be it free domain names or what ever. Just insure they can have the same url save the .xxx instead of .com to prevent squatting on urls and I think it would be a much more useful idea.




RE: .XXX domain
By tacticusv2 on 3/31/2007 2:05:14 AM , Rating: 2
Why not make a .kids?
also what about anyone in another part of the world?

and what happens if the next thing campaigned for is that .xxx is blocked until you request otherwise?

the classification of porn is the hardest part i mean is a discussion with pictures on how to look for possible breast cancers porn? how about a painting?


RE: .XXX domain
By Le Québécois on 3/31/2007 2:40:28 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see how it is connected to this.

Unless I'm mistaken, .xxx registration is voluntary, not mandatory.

http://www.icmregistry.com/

I see as a great way to help filter porn on the internet. It help identify those site for eventual customers and filter them for parents who want to protect their kids. Note that the key word here is HELP. It's not an end to all thing, but it sure wouldn't hurt.


RE: .XXX domain
By jtesoro on 3/31/2007 9:22:58 AM , Rating: 2
After reading the ICM registry web site linked above, I actually think the "filter porn and protect kids" is the weakest rationale for having a .xxx domain. Whether a lot of sites move to the new domain or not, there will still be a ton who will be in the common domains like .com. Blocking .xxx will just be another rule that is added to whatever filtering software people have.

The biggest benefit I see is that porn sites in the domain are bound by Best Business Practices rules incorporated into the registration agreement, giving some level of confidence to customers who go to .xxx. The assumption here is that a lot of current porn sites are kinda shady: they spam, get/sell private info, etc. They probably rely on not getting getting too much complaints from customers. I can't imagine, for example, someone screaming "I'm gonna sue because I viewed 6 porn videos but got billed for 10!". With the new domain, customers can feel relatively safe since the .xxx community self-regulates itself and monitors/enforces compliance to the best practices.


RE: .XXX domain
By Le Québécois on 3/31/2007 6:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
I never said it would filter all the site. It should help. If for exemple, 30% of the porn industry goes to .xxx domains and you create a single filter that prevent your kids to go to .xxx domain names. You get 30% less porn websites to worry about for you kids. It's better than nothing.


RE: .XXX domain
By OrSin on 4/2/2007 9:42:45 AM , Rating: 2
The real problem is cross domian names. Say I have business now i have to buy the XXX name so someone easy don't have a web site wiht my name for porn. But how would i look buy a XXX domian name. You baiscly but alot of people in a bad position. And since it not manatory it really dont change much.


RE: .XXX domain
By alifbaa on 3/31/2007 8:36:01 AM , Rating: 2
I think your argument is a false one.

If your site is required to say "18 and over" at the beginning, then you should be in the .xxx domain. As far as I'm concerned, the debate for free speech is over when a five year old girl doing research for school types in whitehouse.com instead of .gov. No amount of parental involvement will prevent that unless you are actually typing in the url yourself, and even then it could still happen.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. To me, it's about finding a way to allow parents a true choice in what their kids see.

All you people without children will say "watch your kids better." Of course that's always the best answer, but that doesn't mean that a few sensible, easily implemented tools won't help.


RE: .XXX domain
By BladeVenom on 3/31/2007 1:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
If your kids are the internet you have to watch them. Just like you would if you were at a library or bookstore. How many kids would know that The Story of O isn't an alphabet book.


RE: .XXX domain
By alifbaa on 3/31/2007 1:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
I understand you were replying to my comment, but I don't believe you actually read it.


RE: .XXX domain
By BladeVenom on 3/31/2007 2:43:13 PM , Rating: 3
Don't let your kids go to a website unless you've checked it out first. Same with books.


RE: .XXX domain
By alifbaa on 3/31/2007 3:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
I still don't think you've read what I said.


RE: .XXX domain
By Targon on 3/31/2007 1:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
There are some sites that contain mature material yet don't necessarily fall into the porn category. I consider .xxx as the place for hard-core porn, but if it would be considered R-rated in a movie, that's NOT .xxx material.


RE: .XXX domain
By alifbaa on 3/31/2007 1:49:58 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. I don't believe R rated material should be lumped in with porn, although in a lot of cases the line can get very blurry.

Is full frontal nudity considered "hard core?" Probably not by most people's standards. It appears in R rated regularly movies now, although 15 years ago such material would have garnered an NC17.

Having said that, would you want a child to see that if the context of the site is inappropriate? Some would say a 13 year old is fine to see that in a porn setting, most would not. What if the child is 16? Now the line gets even more blurry.

Personally, I don't believe such material is appropriate for anyone. I've seen it destroy families. I've even see it badly distort a very intelligent man's priorities to the point where it left him alone, pathetic, and unable to engage in real relationships. Having said that, I understand those are my beliefs, and are sadly shared by fewer and fewer people as time goes on. Thus, I believe it should remain available. Essentially, I think it should die a death of neglect, not legislation.

Having said that, in no case would I ever support such material being made available without an "over 18" certification. Perhaps a "parental permission required" could be added to that. I understand that such measures as currently placed could easily be circumvented, but any barrier to a child seeing inappropriate material that causes negligible impact on adults who wish to see the material is a good thing. Perhaps stronger measures could be put into place without making a significant impact on its legitimate use.

In my opinion, what must absolutely be stopped are all these sites that rely on misspellings or similar names to attract viewers. There are few good ways to prevent even directly supervised children from mistakenly being exposed to inappropriate material.


RE: .XXX domain
By Puddleglum1 on 4/2/2007 3:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
Can we sticky this? I completely agree.


RE: .XXX domain
By rdeegvainl on 4/2/2007 10:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I don't believe such material is appropriate for anyone. I've seen it destroy families. I've even see it badly distort a very intelligent man's priorities to the point where it left him alone, pathetic, and unable to engage in real relationships.

Sadly you can put the word "WORK" in place of the word it there and i can say the same thing. That is why there is protection of peoples freedoms.


RE: .XXX domain
By tacticusv2 on 3/31/2007 6:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
How about you create a whitelist of sites you want your kid to be able to use?

that’s the point of a .kids you whitelist stuff in there and prevent the computer going to other stuff

because fundamentally it is not our problem, it is not our job to watch your 5 year old kid. The computer is not a baby sitter.

Parents already have well and truly enough methods to control browsing (make a frakking whitelist, use some software from places that make the whitelist for you)

There I have given you 2 sensible, easily implemented tools to solve your problem

Because a .xxx domain won't do it
Unless you mandate it you will not be able to get anyone to move and if you do mandate it they will just move offshore

and then what?

a .xxx is just a method to attract people who have nfi and to make money for registrars


RE: .XXX domain
By alifbaa on 3/31/2007 7:08:27 PM , Rating: 3
Those are all good ideas, and are things I will look into. I do worry, however, that you limit the power of the internet when you block everything but specific sites. I want my children to be able to experience all the good things computing has to offer and to experience the wealth of information that is out there.

As to your point of it not being your job to watch my children...
I have to disagree. It is everyone's job to watch all of our children. Of course, ultimate responsibility rests with my wife and I for our children's protection. But without a good, decent minded society, that job is a whole lot tougher. I've got a bit of somewhat tongue-in-cheek news for you and everyone who thinks like you... when we get old, guess who'll be taking care of us... our children and our grand children. Unless we've done a good job and raised them to value things like family relationships and their fellow human being it won't go well for us!

It is absolutely everyone's responsibility to ensure that the society we all create through our actions -- both public and private -- match as closely to the ideal as possible.


RE: .XXX domain
By BMFPitt on 3/31/2007 12:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
Because then there would be a restricted, kid-safe haven on the internet. That is the last thing that the censorship crowd wants, as it destroys one of their favorite talking points.

Creating a voluntary .XXX domain serves no practical purpose, other than to make money for the registrars. Unless of course you are just using it as a first step toward forced segregation of any content you deem undesirable.


RE: .XXX domain
By Targon on 3/31/2007 1:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
One positive thing would be to free up some space in the .com and .net realm if these sort of content providers move to the new TLD. Sure, there will be people who want both, and there are some domain names that by their very name should be in .xxx.

The real key is getting people to move to the new TLD, and that is the real problem. A forced move would be the only way the new TLD would be useful because too many would stay in .com and .net.


RE: .XXX domain
By BMFPitt on 3/31/2007 4:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
The number of sites that would give up their .com when moving to .xxx would be exactly zero unless it was forced.

If it was forced, a creeping censorship would begin, adding more and more content to the list. Discussing proper usage of contraceptives? That's for .xxx.


RE: .XXX domain
By nekobawt on 4/2/2007 11:29:53 AM , Rating: 2
"Free up space"? Is "space" even an issue on the internet?


RE: .XXX domain
By Milliamp on 3/31/2007 2:38:45 AM , Rating: 2
Being in favor of creating .xxx is one thing, being in favor of restricting web sites with "adult content" from the rest of the Internet, and enforcing (credit card based?)age verification on .xxx is another.

This keeps getting rejected because they are trying to do much more than simply creating another .TLD.

If this does pass are you going to let me use _your_ credit card to prove I am over 18?

With all the fraud currently online do you really believe giving personal information to random porn sites for age verification is a good idea?

Further more, how many of you have never seen porn on the Internet before you were 18? Are you still in therapy?

What happens when some 16 y/o kid uses dad’s card to look at porn and does not read all the fine print? If freecreditreport.com can bill you for getting a free credit report, who is to stop some fly by night operation with servers in Nigeria from defrauding people who didn't read all the fine print?

Who’s morals are we to enforce when forcing these companies off of .com? The Christian morals of the US government? Are boobs "adult content"? What about women who are not covering their faces wit veils? Where does sex-ed become "adult content"? Who’s tax money is going to be spent policing these site off the Internet? Yours?

If different people own porn.com, porn.net, porn.co.uk, and porn.co.jp who is given the rights to use porn.xxx?

This is not like a corner store, on the Internet your name and your location are one in the same.

Don't back pedal now, your post implied you were in favor of migrating these sites off of .com.

BTW, I see you have 420 in your name. Please leave this .com and post all messages to a .drugs domain from now on.


RE: .XXX domain
By Rockjock51 on 3/31/2007 2:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
I must have missed the point where he said he was in favor of requiring credit card based age verification on .xxx. It's also not mandatory, so we're not forcing anyone off of .com. And, since it's not mandatory I doubt any considerable tax money is going to be spent policing something that isn't required by law(any more than is already spent looking for child porn and the like).

Come off your high horse and go read 1984 again.


RE: .XXX domain
By Milliamp on 3/31/2007 2:55:44 PM , Rating: 2
There have been tons of proposals on this, almost none of them advocate simply creating the .xxx TLD without further measures.

From here:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6050973.html?ta...

"Any commercial Internet site or online service that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be required to move its site to that domain. Failure to comply with those requirements would result in civil penalties as determined by the Commerce Department."

And from biohazard420420:
"I think the costs of moving to the new .xxx domain should also be covered in someway to put as little burden on the sites to switch be it free domain names or what ever."

That quote would seem to imply he supports moving these sites off of .com.

Please do no blindly support this without first understanding just what is being proposed. By doing this you are doing everyone else a great disservice.


RE: .XXX domain
By Rockjock51 on 4/1/2007 12:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
What he suggested was to offer incentive to get them to move on their own. Hardly the forced move you were implying. I was merely commenting on the fact that you attacked his post (which was merely a statement that he thought it would be a good thing if done right..). He never said most of the things you attacked and I just pointed it out. I don't really care one way or the other... I'm not naive to think that this will solve any problems, but it couldn't hurt... again, if done properly.


RE: .XXX domain
By vanka on 3/31/2007 2:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
ICANN is an international organization, not an agency of some government. Therefor it has neither the power nor the desire to force certain content to specific TLDs. One of the biggests reasons that ICANN keeps rejecting the xxx domain is that it doesn't want to get into the filtering/censorship business.

Had ICANN approved the xxx domain, it would have been no different from .com or .net. According to all the articles I have read, moving to the new domain would be voluntary; governments could try to make it mandatory, but such laws would most likely be found to infringe on the freedom of speech. Most porn sites would just purchase additional .xxx domains leaving the current ones up as well because there is nothing requiring them to close the old ones; the only ones who would benefit is the registrars - they would have one more domain to sell. Since porn sites would also keep their existing domains, blocking the xxx domain at the office or home would block 25% of porn sites not 75%; so that argument goes out the window.

My personal opinion is that the xxx is unnecessary, it will serve no real or useful purpose; it's just a ploy by registrars to get more money.


RE: .XXX domain
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/31/2007 4:55:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
ICANN is an international organization, not an agency of some government.

It's a non-for-profit California organization, chaired by a U.S. national hero (Vint Cerf), that came to be by U.S. mandate to oversee U.S funded projects like IANA.

Of course, it was set up to move the responsibility of some of the major workings of the internet off the shoulders of the U.S. gov and into the private sector. Unfortunately soon after its inception everyone realized that direct-electing the board members through popular vote wasn't going to work.

ICANN has since put together an advisory group that is more or less multinational, but that's a real far cry from saying that ICANN (as it exists today) is independent from U.S. influence -- especially with regard to the department of commerce.

So yeah, it's technically "international" and barely "not an agency of some government", but for the last 9 years it's been pretty much as close as you could get.


RE: .XXX domain
By vanka on 4/2/2007 2:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
Granted ICANN is not quite as multinational as some would like and the US government does have an influence; but the fact remains that ICANN has no censorship power. It cannot force adult sites over to the .xxx domain. The US government could by passing a law, but such a law would probably be struck down as unconstitutional - restricting the freedom of speech.


In a perfect world
By RogueSpear on 3/31/2007 12:51:41 AM , Rating: 2
You could just block one TLD to keep adult content off of your network. Obviously it isn't and will never be as simple as that. Plus it would probably put all of the "NetNanny" and "CyberSitter" companies out of business.

It is nice that you can safely block out at least couple dozen TLDs now and eliminate a good number of malicious sites.




RE: In a perfect world
By Puddleglum1 on 3/31/2007 12:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
Television, mail-advertisements, billboards, radio, movies, newspapers, magazines, or pretty much any other kind of media that come to us with our everyday lives, is monitored and controlled. They are very easy to monitor because it takes a company to produce them.

The Internet is very much the opposite. Here at DailyTech it takes a few seconds to get an account and start posting comments, thus putting possibly inappropriate content on the Web. No other media is like this, so controlling it requires thinking outside the box.
quote:
A report published in the February issue of Pediatrics showed that 4 in every 10 American youths between the ages of 10 and 17 say they have seen pornography on the internet.
http://www.dailytech.com/PostComment.aspx?newsid=6...
I feel that ICANN is volatile to these decisions being changed overtime, due to changing of board members; although things seem very much stuck as they are, I think it's obvious that NetNanny and CyberSitter are not the best ways of keeping our children from either intentionally or unintentionally viewing adult content on the Internet. Responsible TV watching? Just don't order adult channels. Responsible Internet needs at least some sort of control other than to pay for semi-effective blockers.


RE: In a perfect world
By alifbaa on 4/1/2007 1:45:22 AM , Rating: 2
You know what? That's the perfect point that I've been trying to make. We as parents and responsible adults can do everything possible even including direct supervision of children while on the internet, and it still is never going to be enough to protect our children under the current system. And to those who say "just watch your children," I defy them to show me a teenager who would honestly be OK with their parents watching them as they do every piece of homework on the computer and every video game they play and every IM they send. Even if it were possible to do so peacefully, it still wouldn't be healthy for our children. They wouldn't learn confidence, they wouldn't learn independence. Even barring all of that, we'd be called overprotective by the same people telling us to just "watch your kids."

4 out of 10 children exposed to porn is not a good thing. They simply do not have the maturity or experience to handle those images and understand them appropriately. It teaches exactly the wrong message about relationships to anyone who sees them regardless of how old they are, let alone children. Pornography is a poison to the idea of family. To expose a child to it is more damaging by several orders of magnitude. Any intelligent minded developmental psychologist will tell you that.


RE: In a perfect world
By tacticusv2 on 4/1/2007 2:21:56 AM , Rating: 2
so instead of implementing a solution that does work you think that forcing a solution that will not on the rest of the world will be better?

a .xxx will not do anything except export it to other countries. places where a breast on tv is not a national outrage is accepted a lot more than someone getting shot on the news and funnily enough your kids will still be able to look at it.

you already have a solution if the parents are not compentent to set it up pay for someone else to or stop using it. the internet is not a toy or a babysitter.

In all truth the world would be better served with kids turning into adults knowing the facts than having them churned out as a repressed prude.


RE: In a perfect world
By Puddleglum1 on 4/2/2007 12:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In all truth the world would be better served with kids turning into adults knowing the facts than having them churned out as a repressed prude.
I agree. It would be nice for them to know why all the pron sites are age-prohibited, just like it's nice for them to know why cigarettes are age-prohibited, and drinking is age-prohibited...

Moderation is something that takes wisdom and discernment and responsibility. Kids aren't the best at those things, so I think it makes sense to restrict a lot of this stuff, as opposed to seeing parents who absolutely refuse to let kids on the Internet because of the fear.

I would like to see kids be able to see the great parts of the Internet, and be a part of the online community, and be safe from harmful sites. Adults aren't bothered by them, but kids are seriously curious and susceptible.


Use robots.txt
By Milliamp on 3/31/2007 1:15:30 AM , Rating: 3
Add an (optional) adult content field to robots.txt, that will solve the filtering problem and the freedom of speech problem.




RE: Use robots.txt
By Spartan Niner on 3/31/2007 2:35:28 AM , Rating: 3
That'd be too logical, you see. It'd eliminate the "problem" entirely without much ado.


By crystal clear on 3/31/2007 3:00:58 AM , Rating: 2
There is something even more important than all this XXX
stuff- read below:

"ICANN proposal would shield contact info in Whois record"

An ICANN Task Force has recommended some changes to the domain registration process that would allow registrants to more easily shield their identities. A report released by the Task Force on Whois Services suggests that registrars make it easier for domain name owners to shield their identities.

The Task Force is recommending that domain name owners be permitted to list third-party contact information instead of their own. Administrative and technical contacts would be no longer displayed within the whois system, with their information being supplanted by an "operational point of contact."

An operational point of contact would be responsible for resolving—you guessed it—operational issues themselves, or passing on data to the actual owner of a domain.

Domain name owners who have seen their personal data plucked from whois records and used by spammers, along with privacy advocates, will likely welcome the change. Other constituencies aren't so happy about it. Cybersquatters and other scam artists could more easily hide their identities from law enforcement, while others with a legitimate need to discover the identity of a domain owner would find it much more difficult.............

One alternate proposal from the ICANN task force would force domain owners to disclose their identities with the exception of "special circumstances," domains that are used for noncommercial purposes and where the owners can demonstrate a "basis for concern that public access to specific data about themselves that would otherwise be publicly displayed in Whois would jeopardize a concrete and real interest in their personal safety or security that cannot be protected other than by suppressing that public access," according to ICANN. The Netherlands uses a similar model for its .nl TLD due to its privacy and data protection laws.

The Task Force findings will be considered by ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization Council at a meeting in Lisbon later this month, where there will also be public hearings on the topic. The GNSO Council will then make a policy recommendation to the ICANN Board or reconvene the task force to revise its recommendations

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070321-ican...




By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/31/2007 11:04:36 AM , Rating: 2
This is already kind of moot, since people have been using registrar proxies since like... 1998

Any good registrar can already do this -- and they don't even charge you for it.


Ohhhh Jenna...
By Vanilla Thunder on 4/2/2007 3:40:14 PM , Rating: 3
That picture of Jenna Jameson has me wanting to visit a potential .xxx site....lol.

Vanilla




By tfk11 on 3/31/2007 2:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
IMO The addition of any tld is irrelevant compared to the issue of domains being purchased for the sole purpose turning around and selling them at premium far exceeding the cost of registration. This undermines the very usefulness of the domain system by preventing legitimate sites from obtaining intuitive domains that would otherwise be free. Creating a process that allowed domains found to be lacking any relevant content to be revoked and handed over to another party for a small arbitration fee would do more for the domain system as a whole than the addition of any tld I can think of.




leave the internet alone.
By mgambrell on 4/1/2007 2:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
You are all assholes. Quit making policies for us. Quit trying to improve us. The internet is fine. You are going to naively destroy what you do not understand.




It's simple really...
By xphile on 4/1/2007 8:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
"[The] decision was the result of very careful scrutiny and consideration of all the arguments," said Dr. Vinton Cerf, ICANN chairman...

He went on to say...

"When they figure out it is spelled .S E X not .X X X Im sure we will be able to work something out, but until these idiots get the spelling right Im afraid we still have to be ICANNT rather than ICANN."




Simple
By medavid16 on 4/2/2007 2:36:50 AM , Rating: 2
Answer is simple

It's at least one step closer to filter it out, maybe not completely, but it's at least one step.

also 1 step closer for us to be able to find porn easier.

win for kids and adults =)




"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard

Related Articles
ICANN Rejects .XXX Top Level Domain
May 11, 2006, 1:41 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki