RSS.XXX Domain Delayed Even Further
By Ed Oswald | Published December 2, 2005, 12:07 PM
The future of .xxx became uncertain Thursday after ICANN chairman Vint Cerf announced that plans to approve a proposal for the domain were removed from the agenda for a board meeting in British Columbia.
Approval had already been delayed once before in September. That delay came at the request of the Bush Administration, who said it had received 6,000 complaints over the proposed addition. According to ICANN, more time is needed to review a 350-page report concerning the creation of the domain.
Several conservative-leaning interest groups have spearheaded much of the public resistance in the United States. A few, like the Family Research Council, advised members to write to the Department of Commerce in order to get the domain blocked.
"Some naively suggest that passing a new law to force pornographers to move to .XXX will solve the problem but that will not work either. Law means nothing to hardcore pornographers," the group wrote in a June press release.
"There already is a law prohibiting them from selling hardcore porn on the Internet-anywhere on the Internet - yet they have been doing if for years."
The Bush Administration may also be helping to stir up opposition among foreign governments as well. However, some press reports indicate that it may not be the US, but rather the European Union that is holding up approval of the new virtual Red Light District.
Why not also set up a politics domain. That would cordon off most of the offensive crap on the web :-)
Score: 0
|I think the reason they ( the interest groups ) don't want it, is because if it's there than they have to acknowledge the excistance of "PORN" on the net. With it not there it can be just like every other "so called bad thing's" in this world they can just look the other way and not think about it. I hate prople like that, don't want to fix the "problem" just cover it up.
Score: 0
|Since when was America in charge of the internet?
I'm getting a bit tired of Washington trying to push the EU around. A virtual red light district and xxx domain may be a great idea, but if we in Europe want it we should be allowed to make the decision on whether to support it in our own time.
And all this on the back of a mere 6000 complaints? That's a joke. What was it, one local church making a moral stand?
And what does that matter anyway in Europe, when most of our churches are empty monuments and most European nations have secular governments and societies?
Score: 0
|I consider porn a counterfeit and inferior form of sex that cheapens the beauty and enjoyment of real sex in a real relationship. I am certainly no advocate of online or offline porn.
That being said, whether people like it or not, online porn is already legitimized. If moving it all to an .xxx and .sex domain would help control and block such content, I support it completely.
Score: 0
|Thank you for that, Sacrifice X. I am sure there are others, but yours is the first posting I have come across that is honest from that point of view. "I don't like it, but I acknowledge that it would further my stance".
Pornography is already legitimate, has been for generations, and is not going to go away. That battle has been long lost.
- There is a tremendous profit motive to online pornographers to use the .xxx url instead of .com or other tlds. Initially there would be more such sites, but as the .xxx urls outpace their dot coms in organic search results, the .com urls will in many cases then redirect traffic to the .xxx. Maintaining a website is costly, and maintaining both would be a duplication of efforts, regulating or forcing porn providers over is unnecessary as market forces would do that over time.
- If made available, the .xxx urls would be popular with surfers. Someone searching for porn would get porn. If it is popular with supply, it will be popular with demand.
- It is fairly well established in debate that when someone is protecting "the children" from whatever, they are protecting themselves. That form of emotional manipulation is despicable IMHO. It has been pointed out many times here in this forum and others that .xxx will be readily blocked by any net filter. Objections raised over the welfare of children are absolutely otherworldly to me.
- I have heard the words "online ghetto" used in forums... this is a good thing for pornographers. Putting porn into a seedy neighborhood with lots of blocks and warnings makes it a more forbidden fruit.
- 6000 is a tremendously small minority, but a highly vocal one. Send your congressman an email with a contrary response. With this small a battle, it would not take many.
- I am not convinced that the control of the internet is not better off with the US. Yes, I acknowledge that it is not fair. It is not fair. I can see where if it was handed off to a more global governing body, that there would be squabling, petty regulation, politicization (sp?), strife and misuse. Countries would start mandating what IPs their viewers would receive, content, and more. Countries would blockade other countries, groups of countries would embargo single countries they don't like, or want to manipulate. Costs would be incurred, and a percentge of countries would fight having to pay; this would be more barriers and blockades. These are just scenarios, there are many others and some are probable others are possible. I think people want fairness, and really, really want to see harmony happen as a result... I don't see handing it over to EU or Asia or anyone would create anything but chaos.
Score: 0
|6,000 complaints...That is it lol? I do not really care either way if this proposed idea gains headway or not, i just found it humerous that they put it on hold because 6000 complaints were sent to the Bush Administration... I wonder who called the shots on that one
Score: 0
|i wouldn't mind a .xxx domain requirement (with little thought). I could easily block most porn in a firewall if this were implemented.
Score: 0
|I understand why the porn companies don't want it, that's pretty obvious. But why do these "conservative-leaning interest groups" such as "the Family Research Council" not want it. I would think they would want it.
Score: 0
|These conservative groups think sex is evil and don't want it to exist *anywhere*.
Score: 0
|"There already is a law prohibiting them from selling hardcore porn on the Internet-anywhere on the Internet - yet they have been doing if for years."
What law is this? Does anyone have some info on it?
Score: 0
|i realy dont see the point of this. if it keeps porn away from children ok thats great, but other than that i realy dont get it.
Score: 0
|Yeah, this one is stupid. They already have a domain, and what's keeping from simply pointing a *.com domain to a *.xxx domain?
I know why they don't want it, because the current *.com is working just fine, so why switch? They are making money off those sites... I suspect that those interest groups have a vested interest . . .
Score: 0
|I don't understand why the interest groups wouldn't want this done? It would single out the porn sites (obviously not all of them), but the other domains can also be policed and sites on those can be forced to switch to .xxx. It makes it really easy to block the sites.
Score: 0
|Porn sites make money off advertising. Making the .XXX domain will prevent them from forcing spyware down unsuspecting users' throats. Perhaps the money is talking?
Score: 0
|its about time to. The internet did something like this .
for once our children will be better protected aginst this menuce of the net ...
I can see why they are kicking up a fuss
now we can do domain blocking ... hurray
Score: 0
|I think you misunderstand, it's the interest groups, ie the family groups, that do NOT want this domain...
Score: 0
|From what I understand, porn sites could still keep their .com sites open. If this is the case, what's the point of a .XXX domain?
Score: 0
|