Bush administration objects to .xxx domains (lol)

[rexallllsc]

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

Bush administration objects to .xxx domains
Published: August 15, 2005, 4:15 PM PDT
Last modified: August 15, 2005, 5:25 PM PDT
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
TrackBack Print E-mail TalkBack

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.
Insulation goes high-tech
Indie studio takes wing
Graphical plans for Microsoft
Big search on campus
From Web page to Web platform
Previous Next

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."

The comments at the bottom (follow link) are great. Bush admin is so out of touch.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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



The comments at the bottom (follow link) are great. Bush admin is so out of touch.

I agree that this is idiotic, but who is the Bush admin. out of touch with? The majority that elected them?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Let me get this straight ... there's multinational objection to the domain, but this is somehow a Bush administration issue?

Sigh. You must really be bored today.

{edit to add} -- I actually thought the .xxx domain was a reasonably good idea, until I realized that its use was strictly voluntary. At that point, it became pretty much meaningless.

[KevinNU7]

I think the xxx domain is pretty pointless. It isn't going to be mandatory for porn sites. It's voluntary and most porn sites will want to stay on .com so that they can get extra clicks from people who stumble on them.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I agree that this is idiotic, but who is the Bush admin. out of touch with? The majority that elected them?

That thinking the .xxx will do any sort of harm, or bring more porn to the internet.

Simply, they're out of touch with exactly how the internet works, if you will.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

That thinking the .xxx will do any sort of harm, or bring more porn to the internet.

Simply, they're out of touch with exactly how the internet works, if you will.

Ok, gotcha.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let me get this straight ... there's multinational objection to the domain, but this is somehow a Bush administration issue?

Sigh. You must really be bored today.

{edit to add} -- I actually thought the .xxx domain was a reasonably good idea, until I realized that its use was strictly voluntary. At that point, it became pretty much meaningless.

But ya gotta admit that anyone objecting this is totally wasting their time on something foolish.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

But ya gotta admit that anyone objecting this is totally wasting their time on something foolish.

That probably takes us back to "what do the voters want". In this instance, if there's measurable opposition vs (apparently) no support, why not give the voters what they want? Seems kinda like a freebie to me.

And again, it's not like we're the only nation opposed to this move. Damned if I really see why this is even worth a ripple -- it serves no real purpose AND it upsets some people, so why bother with it at all?

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let me get this straight ... there's multinational objection to the domain, but this is somehow a Bush administration issue?
.

I was thinking the same thing. Of course, they do a good job of burying that point in the article.

[flere-imsaho]

Interesting. Bush & Co are all behind self-regulation for a wide variety of industries, including Energy & Health Care, but they're all ready to hamper the self-regulation efforts of the porn industry?

Does anyone else see the disconnect here?

[rkmsuf]

so it's ok for the porn to be on the .com area and such but not on the .xxx area.

uh, ok.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That probably takes us back to "what do the voters want". In this instance, if there's measurable opposition vs (apparently) no support, why not give the voters what they want? Seems kinda like a freebie to me.

And again, it's not like we're the only nation opposed to this move. Damned if I really see why this is even worth a ripple -- it serves no real purpose AND it upsets some people, so why bother with it at all?

If the voters want this, they're just as dumb as the administration. This (.xxx) changes nothing, and at the WORST helps filter websites that shouldn't be viewed @ schools, etc.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Interesting. Bush & Co are all behind self-regulation for a wide variety of industries, including Energy & Health Care, but they're all ready to hamper the self-regulation efforts of the porn industry?

Does anyone else see the disconnect here?

Not really. I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats who are for goverment-sanctioned regulation of energy and health care but don't care about regulating .xxx. Apples and oranges.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ice4277

Not really. I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats who are for goverment-sanctioned regulation of energy and health care but don't care about regulating .xxx. Apples and oranges.

There's no consistent logic in either case.

So you're saying that you're perfectly OK with the Bush Administration lacking a logical consistency in their regulation efforts?

[ThunderingHERD]

Man, this sucks. How will we ever find porn on the internet now?

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

There's no consistent logic in either case.

So you're saying that you're perfectly OK with the Bush Administration lacking a logical consistency in their regulation efforts?

I'm saying that the issues being compared are too different to compare in this manner. That would be like saying that, hypothetically, if I favor regulations on gun ownership, I must also favor strong regulations by the FCC on broadcast content. But they are two totally separate issues.

Anyways, if we want to look for a pattern of 'consistent logic', wouldn't this be perfectly consistent with the administration's stance on any number of moral issues?

[ISiddiqui]

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."

Are they for real?! Yes, the .xxx domain will cause a groundswell of porn on the internet. What do you say, there already is porn on the internet?! *gasp*

[sovereignstar]

Where's our resident porn industry guy?

[RendeR]

Isn't the relatively simple response to this a mandate by congress to the commerce department that any and all pornographic sites and services be moved unilaterally over to the .xxx domain suffix?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Isn't the relatively simple response to this a mandate by congress to the commerce department that any and all pornographic sites and services be moved unilaterally over to the .xxx domain suffix?

Luckily, the US Congress doesn't control the internet.

[RendeR]

You're right, and thats a good thing, but they DO control the commerce department and the commerce department regulates business in this country. If a piece of legislation is written properly delineating the need to make it very simple to block porn to protect the innocent from easy access to it then the commerce department would be free and able to force the mass move of any and all porn sites from .whatever to .xxx without any recourse by the businesses on the other end of it.

I don't LIKE this idea, but it is a way for them to actually handle the situation.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You're right, and thats a good thing, but they DO control the commerce department and the commerce department regulates business in this country. If a piece of legislation is written properly delineating the need to make it very simple to block porn to protect the innocent from easy access to it then the commerce department would be free and able to force the mass move of any and all porn sites from .whatever to .xxx without any recourse by the businesses on the other end of it.

I'm not sure how that would work from a technical standpoint, though. Does the commerce department have that kind of power over ICANN and the root nameservers?

[RendeR]

I belive they have the ability to revoke business licenses to uphold their regulations...."do it or else?"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Does the commerce department have that kind of power over ICANN and the root nameservers?

from (I think) a slightly different article on the same subject
http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8C12OFG0.html

The chairman of ICANN's Government Advisory Committee, Mohd Sharil Tarmizi, also wrote ICANN officials last week urging delay and expressing "a strong sense of discomfort" among many countries, which he did not name.

Gallagher's comments, however, carry greater weight because his agency has veto power over ICANN decisions given the U.S. government's role in funding early developing of the Internet and selecting ICANN in 1998 to oversee domain name administration.

[Kodos]

I don't see how centralizing it and making it easier to keep kids away is a bad thing.

[Dutch]

Let me see if I undertand the issue.

If the Bush Admin opposes this - they are dumb.
If they support it - they are hypocritical.
And if they ignore it - they don't care.

Do I have that much right? Why should I be motivated to ever take a political science class?

[panerd]

Damn I miss the days when most of the country sort of liked the president but could all agree that something they did was just stupid. Maybe Reagan's "Say no to drugs"? Or any of Clinton's wife's ideas? Now Democrats are forced to defend stupidity from the left no matter what and Republicans have to defend Bush no matter what.

All politics aside, the Bush administration is really fucking stupid here thinking this is going to do shit. And I am surprised that, no matter whether they vote right or left, a bunch of computer forum visitors (who certainly know their shit about the internet) would try and defend this assinine idea.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Let me see if I undertand the issue.

If the Bush Admin opposes this - they are dumb.
If they support it - they are hypocritical.
And if they ignore it - they don't care.

Do I have that much right? Why should I be motivated to ever take a political science class?

I don't know about the latter 2, but opposing it - just dumb. I don't really think there's any other way to put it. If you have any ideas I'm all ears.

[bselig]

He's correctly assuming some people will think this is some kind of generalized opposition to internet porn hence and support of 'family values.' All without having to do any actual work! Or offend any serious lobbying/interest groups. So why not.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Actually, I'm wondering just the opposite -- why would anybody lift a finger to support it?

I mean, it looks like there's general agreement that it will accomplish nothing (since its totally optional for the porn companies). At least there are arguments, however weak they might be, for opposing it. But darned if I've heard anybody really arguing what a wonderful idea it is, making me wonder if the only reason anybody here supports it is because the administration opposes it.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, I'm wondering just the opposite -- why would anybody lift a finger to support it?

I mean, it looks like there's general agreement that it will accomplish nothing (since its totally optional for the porn companies). At least there are arguments, however weak they might be, for opposing it. But darned if I've heard anybody really arguing what a wonderful idea it is, making me wonder if the only reason anybody here supports it is because the administration opposes it.

Why .net? Why .biz? Why .usa? Nothing that isn't already being done will be done w/ the .xxx domains.

As far as arguments against, I can't see one that holds any weight at all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Why .net? Why .biz? Why .usa? Nothing that isn't already being done will be done w/ the .xxx domains.

Except that none of those carry the negative connotations of .xxx

Look, I don't particularly buy the argument that the domain will lend legitimacy to the porn industry ... I think the revenue generated by it alone makes it "legit" at least in terms of its stature in internet commerce. But while I don't buy the argument, I at least understand the argument. On the other hand, absent a provision that restricts porn to that domain, I can't seem to find any useful purpose that's served by creating it.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I don't know about the latter 2, but opposing it - just dumb. I don't really think there's any other way to put it. If you have any ideas I'm all ears.

Let's look at it closer.

The article says that the Bush Admin (presumably the Commerce Department) hinted that it would block the creation of a .xxx root level domain years ago.

The U.S. Commerce Department, according to the article, has "final policy control over the authoritative root server."

The Commerce Department asked to be able to scrutinize this "approval" because other nations were voicing concern over it and many citizens were voicing concern with it. I don't see a problem with that, I mean, do we have to install the .xxx domain Thursday, or can it wait a week?

So who approved this? Only ICANN has approved this so far. But the law states that the Commerce Department can have a say in this matter.

But it's "dumb" that the Commerce Department should question the creation of the .xxx domain? That doesn't make any sense. What domains would you suggest they should review if not .xxx?


But the point isn't all this. The point is the article starts with "the Bush Admin did this" and ends not by saying 'the US Commerce Department has the right to review modifications to the root level' but the "Bush Administration could choose unilaterally to block" the domain.

Ugh, it's just typical bad reporting to incite the reader, not to inform the reader. I think it worked again and probably got more readers than the story deserved.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Let me see if I undertand the issue.

If the Bush Admin opposes this - they are dumb.
If they support it - they are hypocritical.
And if they ignore it - they don't care.

Do I have that much right? Why should I be motivated to ever take a political science class?

Actually, it was stated in this thread that they are hypocritical if they oppose it, not if they support it. So no, you don't have that much right.

[Mac Howard]

Seems sensible to me though it would make even more sense if it were made illegal for porn sites to exist in other domains. As it stands porn merchants won't be forced to use it but some will. That means a few less porn sites for my ten year old daughter to come across accidentally (presumably it will be easy to prevent a PC accessing .xxx).

As for criticising the Bush administration: no one gives a shit what Brazil thinks nor does it have the power to do anything (does anyone really want the UN to have an input? ). America, and that currently means the Bush admistration, does.

This is just a knee jerk reaction from the moral majority stupidly unaware that it is opposing its own interests.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I belive they have the ability to revoke business licenses to uphold their regulations...."do it or else?"

I'd guess that a large number of porn sites are (or would soon be) based outside of the US and wouldn't really care anyhow.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

It's actually a good idea to have the registry, isn't it. Doesn't it make it easier to filter out the sites and thus protect kids? I'm no techno guy, so maybe I am wrong on this.