Backer of .xxx adult domain tries again

A Florida company behind the .xxx domain, intended to be used for online pornography, is trying once again to have it approved.

By a 9-to-5 vote last month, the Internet's governing body shot down the idea of a virtual red-light district after the Bush administration and some other national governments expressed strong objections.

But ICM Registry said Friday that it was going to ask the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, to reconsider.

In addition, ICM Registry released 88 pages of documents (click here for PDF) that it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act--and that show how politicized the debate over .xxx had become inside the Bush administration last summer.

It was publicly known that conservative groups in the United States called on their supporters to ask the U.S. Commerce Department to block the new suffix, but the FOIA documents reveal how aggressive the lobbying campaign last summer actually was.

Mike Hurst, an aide to Rep. Chip Pickering, a Mississippi Republican who's one of the most conservative in the House, pressured the U.S. Commerce Department not to ratify ICANN's decision--and then reported his results back to conservative Christian lobby groups.

Pickering wrote to Jim Wasilewski, the director of Commerce's Office of Congressional Affairs, that Congress is "reviewing our options here on the Hill"--Washington-speak for proposing legislation to block .xxx.

"I met with the Commerce Dept. folks today," Hurst wrote in a subsequent e-mail message on June 16, 2005, to Christian groups including the American Family Association and the Family Research Council. Hurst suggested that ICANN would be a better pressure point: "Maybe we can marshal all our resources toward ICANN?"

Another message shows that Pat Trueman from the Family Research Council and Jan LaRue met with John Kneuer, Commerce's deputy assistant secretary, on June 21.

A few weeks later, in a move unprecedented in ICANN's eight-year history, the Bush administration intervened in the .xxx process by sending a letter in August 2005 saying: "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." ICANN had endorsed the concept of an .xxx domain in June and approval of ICM Registry's contract to run the suffix was expected to take place in a routine vote in late summer.

Commerce Department officials appeared worried about an even more public outcry from conservative groups. The Family Research Council, for instance, warned on its Web site that "pornographers will be given even more opportunities to flood our homes, libraries and society with pornography through the .xxx domain."

An e-mail message dated June 16, 2005, from Fred Schwein, the department's executive secretary, said: "Who really matters in this mess is Jim Dobson. What he says on his radio program in the morning will determine how ugly this really gets--if he jumps on the bandwagon, our mail server may crash."

More from News.com on this story's topics

Domain names

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Federal government

Create an email alert | RSS feed

See more CNET content tagged:
Chip Pickering, porn, domain, Bush Administration, U.S.

33 comments (Page 1 of 2)
I am at a loss..
by Johnny Mnemonic May 19, 2006 10:18 PM PDT
As to how short sighted the Bush regime has always been. Can they not see that the porn industry is making it easier to identify them? Forcing all sex industry content into the xxx domain would make it SO much easier to block! It would make a virtual red-light district that would be relegated to only the fringe rather than rampant throughtout the entire internet. What an incredibly wasted opportunity.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
They're looking at it the wrong way
by dmx512rob May 19, 2006 10:39 PM PDT
I think the conservatives are looking at this the wrong way, rather than saying that the .xxx domain would allow more domains for porn sites, they should look at how easy it would be to block porn sites from kids by only typing "*.xxx" in the list of blocked sites. I think they should actually pass legislation requiring porn sites to use the .xxx domain rather than the .com, .net, .org, etc. Right now it's almost impossible to know that a site is pornographic without actually looking at the site, whitehouse.com is a good example of this. If all (US) porn sites used the .xxx domain this could make running a library, school, or home network a lot easier, not to mention the ammount of .com domains that it would free up for more legitimate commercial sites.
Reply to this comment View reply
Extend robots.txt to include "Adult: /" tag instead
by Dachi May 20, 2006 12:39 AM PDT
The .xxx TLD won't work because there would still be plenty of porn on .com addresses and you can't force sites to all move to a new TLD because it is a free speech violation, many are outside of jurisdiction, it is too big of a task to track them all down, and they own their .com's and we really have no right to demand they abandon their existing locations. Instead, the sites that would like to, can just place the following 2 lines at the end of their robots.txt file. User-agent: * Adult: / This would be optional for the web sites and relatively trivial to filter as well but without many of the difficulties associated with the .xxx TLD. I have yet to hear a better solution.
Reply to this comment
.XXX
by dannyw1943 May 20, 2006 5:26 AM PDT
With the ".XXX" there are programs that can block that domain thus eliminating the porn problem!
Reply to this comment
.XXX will NOT work!!!
by sigzero May 20, 2006 6:15 AM PDT
You CANNOT make the move to .xxx mandatory. Therefore, the whole "we can filter" argument is a loy of hooey. If you cannot mandate it, why would you create another TLD for them to propagate into? That is foolishness. WHO gets to decide WHAT porn is? Everyone has a different threshold on what they think porn is. Therefore, it would be impossible to implement. Do you all understand those two issues? It will not work.
Reply to this comment
Use of .com MUST be criminalized for it to work
by thenet411 May 20, 2006 6:38 AM PDT
The only way that the .xxx TLD can be of any use is to make it a felony to host any porn in any TLD other than .xxx. Most online porn providers are total scumbags and they get off on using names like whitehouse.com to make a quick buck off the sad and lonely souls that frequent porn sites. So many legitimate .com domains point to porn it is ridiculous. If the .xxx TLD is approved without making it a federal crime to use any other TLD to either host or point to porn (like an automatic redirect from a legit .com address to a .xxx address) this will only give the scumbags a whole new namespace in which to push their crap. But, therein lies the problem. Who can define porn? Congress can't. The media can't. Everyone has their own definition of pornography. Take the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake incident. Some people think that Janet Jackson's exposed breast is pornography. Others (including myself) think that Janet Jackson's exposed breast was just a boob that popped out and everyone should get over it. So, who is right? The conservative groups think that they are right and I think I am right. So, based on that scenario, what happens if I have a web site with a picture of the incident and my web site is in the .com domain space? Those that feel that it is pornography would try to criminalize me and throw me in jail. Many teenage boys would look at the Sears "Intimate Collection" catalog for women in lingerie for "inspriation." Was that pornography? To the teenage boys, it was used as pornography. To grown men, it was either an inspiration to buy something for their wife or the same thing a teenage boy would use it for. For most women, it was a catalog to see what was available for their bedroom activities and nothing more. So, again, who can define pornography? Could it be defined as anything "patently offensive" as seems to tbe the popular definition? Who is to say what is patently offensive? I don't get offended by seeing people engaging in consentual sex. I say good for them. Others would be so upset by seeing two consenting adults having sex that they would vomit. Lets say that congress says that ANY site with human nudity must be hosted in the .xxx TLD. Does that mean that National Geographic will only be found at nationalgeographic.xxx? Or a doctor with before and after surgery pictures? Where does it stop? Who is to say where it stops? I am all for an easy way to filter out the pornography by using the .xxx domain. But in order for it to work you have to either get the online porn providers to voluntarily comply with the spirit of the domain or make it a crime to host pornography in any other TLD namespace. The problem is that, as stated above, most online porn providers are scumbags who would never go along with it. And making it a crime would be incredibly difficult without a clear definition of what pornography is. Enacting the .xxx domain would be a mistake. It will only serve to give the low life scum sucking set of freaks that are domain squatters and porn providers that use many domain name tricks to lure people (and our children) to their sites to make a quick buck. The failures of ICANN and the Bush administration are many, but this is not one of them. This one was thought out and they came to the only conclusion that made any sort of sense.
Reply to this comment
I understand the issue...
by Johnny Mnemonic May 20, 2006 10:09 AM PDT
Granted that it would be difficult to define what is or is not objectionable, but, there is a clear definition of pornography: "any sexually explicit writing and/or picture intended to arouse sexual desire." Seems pretty clear cut to me. These web sites can police themselves initially as they already are required to have an 18 or older check before you enter their sites. The definitions are subjective and we can deal with one case at a time. Adding a xxx domain would at the very least create a clearly defined border on the internet for these sites. We can argue the definition of what is or is not sexuazlly explicit later. The most explicit sites would be required to move or be fined. Period! It's like moving a whorehouse away from the residential neighborhood into the very edge of town where uncle Joe could go and get his rocks off.
Reply to this comment View reply
I understand the issue...
by Johnny Mnemonic May 20, 2006 10:10 AM PDT
Granted that it would be difficult to define what is or is not objectionable, but, there is a clear definition of pornography: "any sexually explicit writing and/or picture intended to arouse sexual desire." Seems pretty clear cut to me. These web sites can police themselves initially as they already are required to have an 18 or older check before you enter their sites. The definitions are subjective and we can deal with one case at a time. Adding a xxx domain would at the very least create a clearly defined border on the internet for these sites. We can argue the definition of what is or is not sexuazlly explicit later. The most explicit sites would be required to move or be fined. Period! It's like moving a strip club away from the residential neighborhood into the very edge of town where uncle Joe could go and get his rocks off.
Reply to this comment
Pornographers and Liberal/ACLU types are against this also
by fafafooey May 20, 2006 4:46 PM PDT
but as typical with CNet "news", Republicans are to blame....
Reply to this comment View reply
ICM Registry = bunch of hypocrites
by Jackson Cracker May 20, 2006 5:20 PM PDT
Their complaint seems to be that various national governments (including the USA) were interfering with the Internet. But how did they think their own little scheme was ever going to work unless those same national governments (particularly the USA) really did interfere by passing laws or regulations to force web site operators to give up all their existing names using .com/.net/.biz/.info/.to/.tv/.ws/.ca/.de etc and use only .xxx? This plan was a recipe for failure from the beginning.
Reply to this comment
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News.com to your homepage or feedreader.
Google
Yahoo
MSN
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Today's Top Stories
CSC settles with feds over kickback allegations
Windows Server 2008 goes down-market
Red Hat lives on the edge with Fedora 9
Photobucket to launch group albums
'Grand Theft Auto IV' nets Guinness record
Most Popular Stories
RIM makes a Bold BlackBerry debut
Google brings Friend Connect to the masses
Welcome to the social mess?
Nintendo launches WiiWare with six games
XP update throws some for a loop
Markets

Market news, charts, SEC filings, and more

Related quotes

Dow Jones Industrials (-0.46%) -59.44 12,816.87
S&P 500 (-0.15%) -2.05 1,401.53
NASDAQ (-0.27%) -6.60 2,481.89
CNET TECH (-0.22%) -3.83 1,741.98
  Symbol Lookup
Detroit auto show
Detroit auto show

Detroit auto show
advertisement
Click Here
On CHOW: Does drinking ice water burn calories?
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: