Bush administration opposes .xxx top-level domain for adult sites

[cinten]

http://news.com.com/Bush+administration+objects+to+.xxx+domains/2100-1028_3-5833764.html?tag=nefd.top

The Bush administration is objecting to the creation of a .xxx domain, saying it has concerns about a virtual red-light district reserved exclusively for Internet pornography.

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."

[X]

Goop?

[Groucho]

:lol: Come on!

[bhk]

Can you bold the important parts?

[Red Dog]

Well that's one way to spin it. :lol:

[Groucho]

Can you bold the important parts?He already did!

[cinten]

Well that's one way to spin it. :lol:

I am following someone who posts in that fashion.

[Red Dog]

I am following someone who posts in that fashion.


Oh, well then.

[Mopower]

So is cinten really Goop or Surf Monkey? Whoever he is we all lose.

[cinten]

Can you bold the important parts?


Here are a few...


The Bush administration is objecting to the creation of a .xxx domain, saying it has concerns about a virtual red-light district reserved exclusively for Internet pornography


Guess they want it with the .com .net areas.

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 domai

Not even sure about that logic.

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 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

[Shoveler]

I am following someone who posts in that fashion.

If you're talking about, for example, this thread (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=432864), then another mod-imposed title change seems inevitable. -ohbfrank-

PS -- You forgot "for their own pleasure" ;)

[Mopower]

He already did!


:lol:

[nemein]

Seems like a pretty silly decision to me. I would have thought people (from both sides of the issue actually) would have preferred this TLD as an easy way to distinguish things.

[cinten]

I think a decision like this would be obvious to both sides also. Hoenstly not to sure why anyone on either side would block it.

[Thor Simpson]

Bush administration pro exposing kids to porn.
You're kidding me, right? While I agree that this is a stupid decision and that a .xxx domain would be a fantastic step in <i>protecting</i> kids from this content... are you just <i>trying</i> to establish zero credibility around here where it comes to discussion about this administration?

[cinten]

You're kidding me, right? While I agree that this is a stupid decision and that a .xxx domain would be a fantastic step in <i>protecting</i> kids from this content... are you just <i>trying</i> to establish zero credibility around here where it comes to discussion about this administration?

It was a joke about another poster who titles articles in that way.

[General Zod]

:lol: nice title.

I agree with you though Cinten, the .xxx domain should go through. It's been needed for a very long time.

[Thor Simpson]

It was a joke about another poster who titles articles in that way.
Hmmm... I guess I didn't get the joke. All I know is having that headline on the front page of the political forum doesn't do anyone much good... whichever poster you are refering to (I have an idea who that might be) might want to reconsider their methods of communication. All it does is make me view the thread as a headline on the Enquirer or something... nothing worth actually looking into, just agenda pushing. I feel the same way about some pro-Bush posters. If that's what you're going for, by all means continue.

But if you have a problem with what someone is doing, generally the best response is not to emulate that person. ;)

I love the discussions that take place around here... I find out about issues I wouldn't have otherwise known about. But having threads that are so biased in their titling really makes meaningful discussion difficult.

[Brain Stew]

Who enforces the .xxx though? I don't support the idea, because there is no way of enforcement!

[joeblow69]

I'm not sure I like the idea of .xxx domains.

Would it be manditory for adult websites to move to .xxx? If not, what's the point?
Who gets to decide what is too adult for .com?
What if major ISPs get taken over by puritanical whackos and decide to block all .xxx domains?
What if major ISPs decide to charge more $$$ for access to .xxx domains to "prove" you are of age?

I don't like the idea of kids being bombarded by porn on the internet either, but I think there are much better ways to solve the problem. Parents are just too ignorant, cheap, or lazy to do so.

[Groucho]

If they ever did this, I would write a Firefox extension that disallows you to surf to any site that doesn't have the .xxx domain.

[Brain Stew]

Groucho is a rebel coder, d00d.

[classicman2]

I didn't have to look at the author of the thread to know who penned it. ;)

[nemein]

I don't like the idea of kids being bombarded by porn on the internet either, but I think there are much better ways to solve the problem.

Like what? I agree this won't solve everything but I don't see where this hurts much of anything either. If your ISP decides to block it and you want it, just pick another ISP. Regarding who gets to regulate it I assume it would be under the same control of those who get to pick what is a .com and what is a .net (whether that stays w/ the current people or moves to the UN [:yack: to that idea] is another discussion). The biggest problem I have w/ the opposition is that it seems to be based more on the mistaken idea that they will actually be able to eliminate porn from the net -ohbfrank-

[cinten]

But if you have a problem with what someone is doing, generally the best response is not to emulate that person. ;)


Was a one time only joke, not going to start posting like that.

Not too sure how they would regulate the .xxx TDL though, would be interesting to find out though.

[Thor Simpson]

Was a one time only joke, not going to start posting like that.

Not too sure how they would regulate the .xxx TDL though, would be interesting to find out though.
Cool.

As far as regulating the .xxx TDL, even if it was just another optional domain and people weren't required to use it, at least it would be easy to block millions of these sites. Getting buy-in to force people to use it is far harder... not sure how you could ever do that.

[joeblow69]

Like what?
Well, NetNanny for one. Sure it isn't perfect, but I don't see how this .xxx thing would be either.
Also, any moron could set up an AOL child account that would be pretty damn near porn free.
Or god forbid a parent physically monitors their child's net time!

I agree this won't solve everything but I don't see where this hurts much of anything either. If your ISP decides to block it and you want it, just pick another ISP. Regarding who gets to regulate it I assume it would be under the same control of those who get to pick what is a .com and what is a .net (whether that stays w/ the current people or moves to the UN [:yack: to that idea] is another discussion). The biggest problem I have w/ the opposition is that it seems to be based more on the mistaken idea that they will actually be able to eliminate porn from the net -ohbfrank-
What you will see is any library (that wants federal funding) will have to block all .xxx domains. Then it becomes much more important who is actually deciding which domains have to be xxx.

Then you will also run into problems where the puritanical types will have a cow because some .com site offends their very nature, and will complain (sue?) some board to get it reclassified. This will happen again and again, until all of .com and .net will be about as interesting as Mr Rogers Neighborhood.

Not only will webmasters have to pay top dollar for all their new .xxx domains, you can expect government "licensing" of domains of some sort, with some kind of over the top recordkeeping regulations (you think the new regulations are bad?) in the name of "preventing child porn".

[nemein]

Getting buy-in to force people to use it is far harder... not sure how you could ever do that.

In some ways it would be kind of self regulating I would think. There would be an initial "stamped" as everyone tries to "reclaim" the .com name or capture the .com name of someone else. After there there would most likely be exclusive .xxx search engines and other incentives within the industry itself to use those addresses. I seriously doubt porn would disappear from the rest of the net but I think the people interested in that would drive the popularity of .xxx w/o much outside incentive/regulation.

[nemein]

This will happen again and again, until all of .com and .net will be about as interesting as Mr Rogers Neighborhood.

So porn is all that makes .com and .net interesting :hscratch:


in the name of "preventing child porn".

I'm also confused by this, are you saying child porn (which is/should be illegal) or preventing children from seeing porn, which is a COMPLETELY different (unrelated in most ways) topic.

[joeblow69]

So porn is all that makes .com and .net interesting :hscratch:

No, I was referring to adult "non-porn" sites that biblehuggers may find offensive.

I'm also confused by this, are you saying child porn (which is/should be illegal) or preventing children from seeing porn, which is a COMPLETELY different (unrelated in most ways) topic.
The move to .xxx is about both preventing children from seeing porn, and moving it all to one place where it will be easier to squash child porn.

It's not a COMPLETELY different topic, since it's actually mentioned in the orignal post.

[Ranger]

the .xxx domain should go through.
Um, no.

What a monster I am! If I think this is a stupid idea so I must be "pro exposing kids to porn"!

[sfsdfd]

Would it be manditory for adult websites to move to .xxx? If not, what's the point?
The point would be that you have a sure-fire indicator that a website has adult content. Currently, there is no such indicator. Word filters for that purpose can be misled by simple profanity, or even medical terminology.

In short, those sites that opt in to the move will be clearly identified. Those sites that don't will not change. This is a clear advantage over the current situation.
Who gets to decide what is too adult for .com?
I don't think anyone has to decide. It just becomes another, optional TLD.
What if major ISPs get taken over by puritanical whackos and decide to block all .xxx domains?
Then the Internet public will dump those ISPs faster than you can possibly imagine. Hey, if this decision tangentially led to the bankruptcy of AOL, that would be an added advantage. ;)
I don't like the idea of kids being bombarded by porn on the internet either, but I think there are much better ways to solve the problem. Parents are just too ignorant, cheap, or lazy to do so.
If you set up an email account at Yahoo, you will almost immediately begin receiving porn spam. Parental ignorance, cheapness, and laziness are non-factors in this equation.

- David Stein

[General Zod]

I like the .xxx domain idea, and think we should move towards it. I don't think we should "force" people to that domain though. However, I think some incentives to move would go a long way.

For example, how about making the domain name free to already established .com or .net sites that are willing to switch over? Just make it so both domain names will point to the same server for 6 months and then the old name will go away.

The bottom line is there is no way to "Enforce" this, but I don't see a problem with the domain being created and encouraging people to move to it.

[Ranger]

If they ever did this, I would write a Firefox extension that disallows you to surf to any site that doesn't have the .xxx domain.

Meh, just create a shortcut key for .xxx

.com = CTRL+Enter
.org = CTRL+SHIFT+Enter
.net = SHIFT+Enter
.xxx = ???

Back to square one, lazy parents.

BTW: I'm sure all parents know that kids can easily cover their tracks with an anonymous proxy service, right?

[joeblow69]

If you set up an email account at Yahoo, you will almost immediately begin receiving porn spam. Parental ignorance, cheapness, and laziness are non-factors in this equation.

- David Stein
If you are a parent, and set up your child with a Yahoo address, then you are ignorant. Sorry.

If you are worried about your child receiveing porn spam, then you need to set them up with an account that has "whitelists" of people who are allowed to send them email. Aol does this. Hell, even macs do this.

Anyway, if you are right, and the .xxx domain is completely optional, then I have no problems with it.

[nemein]

No, I was referring to adult "non-porn" sites that biblehuggers may find offensive.

I didn't see any indication from anyone that "non-porn" sites are going to be moved to .xxx?

The move to .xxx is about both preventing children from seeing porn, and moving it all to one place where it will be easier to squash child porn.

So we shouldn't be trying to squash child porn :hscratch:

[joeblow69]

I didn't see any indication from anyone that "non-porn" sites are going to be moved to .xxx?
The point was that really loudmouth people will complain that some sites that "normal" people wouldn't consider porn are offensive and should be in the .xxx domain. With enough bitching, they will get these sites reclassified somehow.

So we shouldn't be trying to squash child porn :hscratch:
Yes, but I believe that's a red herring. They want to move all the porn into one spot so they can try to regulate it out of existence. The whole "we're only looking out for child porn" thing is just a cover.

I know, I know... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v399/dabrink/tinfoil.gif

[Ranger]

Yes, but I believe that's a red herring. They want to move all the porn into one spot so they can try to regulate it out of existence. The whole "we're only looking out for child porn" thing is just a cover.
Agreed.

[nemein]

The point was that really loudmouth people will complain that some sites that "normal" people wouldn't consider porn are offensive and should be in the .xxx domain. With enough bitching, they will get these sites reclassified somehow.

I guess we'll have to see if/how the regulations are written up, but I would be very surprised if anything like this was allowed to happen.

Yes, but I believe that's a red herring. They want to move all the porn into one spot so they can try to regulate it out of existence. The whole "we're only looking out for child porn" thing is just a cover.

So explain then why they are opposed to the creation of the .xxx TLD in the first place :scratch2:

[joeblow69]

So explain then why they are opposed to the creation of the .xxx TLD in the first place :scratch2:
Who is they? I'm not railing against president bush, I'm against those who are for the .xxx domains. Bush is against it because he fears that regulating porn gives it some kind of legitimacy.

[VinVega]

If you REALLY want porn, 3 x's in a website is not going to stop even a half-wit from finding it. This is feel good legislation.

[nemein]

Who is the "they" you are talking about? I always though the .xxx drive was coming from the industry itself (not that I've really followed the history of it that much).

Here's some notes from someone on the board
http://joi.ito.com/archives/2005/06/03/some_notes_on_the_xxx_top_level_domain.html

Here's the application
http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/xxx.htm

Another interesting commentary
http://www.icannwatch.org/articles/05/06/03/0540257.shtml

[Red Dog]

If you REALLY want porn, 3 x's in a website is not going to stop even a half-wit from finding it. This is feel good legislation.


Thank you.

[nemein]

If you REALLY want porn, 3 x's in a website is not going to stop even a half-wit from finding it. This is feel good legislation.

There's legislation mentioned in these articles? The proposal from ICANN to create .xxx doesn't qualify, the attempt to block it from DoC isn't legislation so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Are you saying creating .xxx is "feel good" or blocking it is...

[joeblow69]

Who is the "they" you are talking about?
I was referring to Fred Upton and Joe Leiberman, who in the very article posted at the top of this thread are pushing for the .xxx domains.

[nemein]

I was referring to Fred Upton and Joe Leiberman, who in the very article posted at the top of this thread are pushing for the .xxx domains.

Gotcha :up: I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the whole .xxx started as something else (related more to TLD allocation/scarcity) than someone on capitol hill w/ on a "mission".

[VinVega]

There's legislation mentioned in these articles? The proposal from ICANN to create .xxx doesn't qualify, the attempt to block it from DoC isn't legislation so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Are you saying creating .xxx is "feel good" or blocking it is...
The concept is a "feel good" concept.

Proposing the .xxx it, OR blocking it, doesn't make much sense either way to me. We're talking about PORN here. You could outlaw porn all together and there'll still be porn. Anyone with a sore right hand would be automatically thrown in jail though. That's my utopia. :up:

[nemein]

You could outlaw porn all together and there'll still be porn.

I agree whether this exists or not there will still be porn and some of it will still be in places other than .xxx. If it really is something the industry itself wants though I don't see any reason not to provide it. The arguments about regulation/limiting speech/"shutting down the industry" are all red herrings IMHO. There are other protections in our system of Gov't that will prevent this.

[dick_grayson]

and then who would decide what is porn and what isn't? I'm sure the Bush admin. would consider something artsy and classy like tubgirl to be porn. :D

[nemein]

and then who would decide what is porn and what isn't?

The people applying for the specific domain. The Gov't doesn't regulate who gets what domain now (aside from people "domain squatting" and even then I don't think they've had to step in too often), I don't see why that should change. If people (on either side) are looking at this as some means of stuffing all the porn into one spot they are approaching it w/ the wrong concept in mind IMHO. However I still don't see a valid reason not to create it.

[mikehunt]

I'm not sure I like the idea of .xxx domains.

Would it be manditory for adult websites to move to .xxx? If not, what's the point?
Who gets to decide what is too adult for .com?
What if major ISPs get taken over by puritanical whackos and decide to block all .xxx domains?
What if major ISPs decide to charge more $$$ for access to .xxx domains to "prove" you are of age?

I don't like the idea of kids being bombarded by porn on the internet either, but I think there are much better ways to solve the problem. Parents are just too ignorant, cheap, or lazy to do so.

:up:
it's just more big gov't regulation BS

[nemein]

it's just more big gov't regulation BS

ICANN is NOT a Gov't organization though.

http://www.icann.org/faq/#WhatisICANN
ICANN's role is very limited, and it is not responsible for many issues associated with the Internet, such as financial transactions, Internet content control, spam (unsolicited commercial email), Internet gambling, or data protection and privacy.

[Ranger]

If this was not meant to regulate and these .xxx domains are merely optional, why are politicians, not porn companies, pushing for them?

If porn companies are not pushing for the .xxx domains, is it not likely that they'll not bother to switch to the .xxx domain?

My thinking is that this is just setting the base for eventually forcing porn sites to change their domain names. Then the government has to determine what "is" a porn site. That simply should be the jobs of the parents.

[nemein]

Yep, ok, I give up... it's all just a huge conspiracy (by someone... I'm not sure who at this point since everyone seems to be upset about it being/not being created) to somehow eliminate porn from the net (like that's ever going to happen whether this is done or not)...

Frankly one potential fall out from this is ICANN losing "control" of this process and the UN making a case they would be a better entity to regulate it -ohbfrank-

[Ranger]

Well, consider the same kind of thinking behind the criticisms of the Patriot Act. It MIGHT accomplish some good, but it can set the path for someone in the future to abuse it.

[nemein]

Well, consider the same kind of thinking behind the criticisms of the Patriot Act. It MIGHT accomplish some good, but it can set the path for someone in the future to abuse it.

If this was actual legislation of some sort I would agree. ICANN is NOT a Gov't organization (although they obviously work closely w/ Gov'ts) and they shouldn't be getting into debates of this nature. AFAIK a valid organization filed a valid request for a new TLD and they would seem to have the support/backing/interest to make it work. Anything else about content and filtering and all that should be left up to the Gov'ts of the individual countries to work out, which they are doing w/ I'net porn anyway regardless of a .xxx TLD.

Again IMHO a worst case scenario will be this undermines ICANN's ability to do their job, the UN takes over (something they are chomping at the bit to do) and then all bets are off wrt how domains are regulated/governed (since the UN frequently has shown it thinks it has more authority to do things than it really has).

[mikehunt]

ICANN is NOT a Gov't organization though.

http://www.icann.org/faq/#WhatisICANN

but if the bush administration or other politicians force it, it would be big gov't nanny state BS

[Ranger]

I had to get some more info on ICANN so I went to my usual source: Cato.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-05-00.html
December 5, 2000
The Internet Star Chamber

by Lucas Mast

Lucas Mast is a researcher in information studies at the Cato Institute.

Vice President Gore may claim to have invented the Internet, but no matter who becomes the next president, no politician will govern it. That task falls to an obscure board of directors in Marina del Ray, Calif., called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). And just like a Palm Beach County election official, ICANN has little regard for democratic principles or standard rules of order.

ICANN, which held its annual meeting last week, is largely unknown outside of academic and political circles. But the group wields considerable power. At its recent meeting, ICANN voted on the addition of new top-level domain names (TLDs) to the familiar ones like .com, .org and .edu. After receiving 47 proposals from groups interested in obtaining and managing new TLDs, such as .kids, .biz and .tel -- along with a $50,000 non-refundable entry fee per application -- ICANN selected only seven new TLDs.

Of those, few seemed to have much usefulness in alleviating the congestion and scarcity of domain names on the Internet. For example, while .pro (for professionals), .name (individual names), and .biz (businesses) seem to have utility, .coop (cooperatives) and .museum are key examples of additions that will do little to help.

The problem with ICANN is that it operates as a virtual Star Chamber, holding closed-door meetings, disguising taxes as "fees," trampling free speech in the name of trademark protection, and generally acting as a lackey for the federal government and a few select corporations.

Four current ICANN board members had to recuse themselves from voting on the TLD issue because they either represent parties who have submitted bids for new domain names or were technical advisors to companies submitting proposals. So while they did not vote on the issues, they were present in the discussion leading up to the vote. Karl Auerbach, winner of the North American at-large board seat, has said, "The directors have inside knowledge about the criteria that will be applied and the biases of those who will be doing the evaluation." He thinks ICANN's power over domain names should be "tossed in the trash bin entirely."

ICANN was created in 1998 by the Department of Commerce, which still maintains final authority over major ICANN decisions, in an effort to gain control over web-address policy. The original interim board of nine people selected by government officials and the late Internet pioneer Jon Postel is giving way to a board more representative of those with a stake in the future of the Internet. ICANN even had worldwide elections that resulted in some interesting non-corporate individuals being added to the board at last week's meeting, such as Andy Mueller-Maguhn, a self-proclaimed anarchist hacker.

But such voices were not welcome at the ICANN meeting. That's because the board made the controversial decision to extend the terms of several departing members, which ensured a more corporate, old guard, protectionist mentality. Indeed, the board refused to seat newly elected members until the end of last week's meeting, thereby excluding them from voting on the important policy items. In short, Internet users were in the minority as ICANN made decisions that will reshape the Internet as we know it.

Most people care little about the technical aspects of the Internet. So long as they can buy a book online, e-mail their friends, and download music (all with a modicum of privacy), they will ignore the actions of bodies such as ICANN. But the landscape of the Internet is changing, and quasi-governmental groups are playing an outsized role in an area of the economy once thought of as a model of free-wheeling capitalism. In a .com world, there's little use for a .gov mentality.

[nemein]

but if the bush administration or other politicians force it, it would be big gov't nanny state BS


Which could happen (and most likely would be shot down in the courts) whether or not .xxx is adopted or not. Or do you mean some admin taking over ICANN's functions again? That's certainly a possibility and almost as bad of an idea as the UN doing it IMHO (but again not related to whether .xxx is approved).

[nemein]

I had to get some more info on ICANN so I went to my usual source: Cato.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-05-00.html

Here's another good link (although it takes a lot more reading ;)) http://news.search.com/search?q=ICANN&cat=230&int.1278=1&ob=startDate It's Cnet's summary of news articles related to ICANN. Certainly ICANN is not a perferct organization, but it is preferred to the UN having anything to do w/ it though IMHO ;)

[wmansir]

Even if the .xxx domain were done on a voluntary basis, I think it could help regulate pornography access in a positive way. It would give users, parents and various organizations much needed control over what they access without totally relying on 3rd party blocker tools.

The key I think is to give owners an incentive to move to .xxx. However, I don't know if these things are being done. First, .xxx domains cost anywhere from 2-10x other domains, making them less attractive to operators. Also, I don't know if .com holders are given first stab at .xxx domains, a potentially unsurmountable roadblock for holders of current high profile .com domains. And I don't know if .xxx domains will be given 'safe harbor' from internet regulations, which would seem a very good incentive.

Without positive incentives to move porn to .xxx it seems the obvious next step will be to impose limits on other domains to force adult content onto .xxx, otherwise it serves no purpose at all. Even if that were their eventual goal, the process would go much smoother with appropriate incentives. If the .xxx domain were seen as a positive asset for legitimate adult content providers then those who remained in .com to peddle pornography would receive little support.