Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sex domain dies
The Australian ^ | 30 March 2006 | Simon Hayes

Posted on 03/29/2006 7:29:54 PM PST by Aussie Dasher

A SPECIAL domain for sex websites has bitten the dust at an international meeting in New Zealand today, with Australia, the US and the European Union moving to kill off a proposal for ICANN to create a ".xxx" domain for pornography.

Amid vociferous opposition, ICANN, the international body that is responsible for internet domain names, has been considering a proposal by US company ICM Registry for the new code.

But governments have been fighting a rearguard action to have the plan canned, with the US Department of Commerce and the European Commission writing to ICANN opposing the proposal.

Australia brought the issue to a head earlier this week with Communications Minister Helen Coonan saying she had "serious concerns" that the domain would legitimise illegal material.

ICANN's governmental advisory committee today put the nail in the coffin of .xxx, saying "several (governments) are emphatically opposed from a public policy perspective to the introduction of .xxx".

The grouping - which represents governments - said special protections for children and provisions to help law enforcement agencies identify the owners of web sites promised by the registry had not been included in its contract.

"In its application ... ICM Registry promised a range of public interest benefits as part of its bid to operate the .xxx domain," said GAC chairman Sharil Tarmizi, who represents the Malaysian Government. "To GAC's knowledge these undertakings have not yet been included as obligations in the proposed registry agreement negotiated with ICANN."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dead; gorn; icann; internet; over; sexdomain; xxx
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-156 next last
I suppose somebody, somewhere, cares...
1 posted on 03/29/2006 7:29:55 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
It wasn't a bad idea ..the problem is that the existing .com domains used for porn have great commercial value and this would have involved tremendous monetary destruction and all kinds of companies would have objected and had rights to defend.
2 posted on 03/29/2006 7:36:19 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
It wasn't a bad idea ..the problem is that the existing .com domains used for porn have great commercial value and this would have involved tremendous monetary destruction and all kinds of companies would have objected and had rights to defend.

I think public pressure could resurrect this.

Businesses should demand it too. Want to stop people from viewing porn at work? Block the .xxx addresses. It could be a boon for parents, as well. Just block all the .xxx sites.

3 posted on 03/29/2006 7:39:34 PM PST by Terabitten (The only time you can have too much ammunition is when you're swimming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten

"Businesses should demand it too. Want to stop people from viewing porn at work? Block the .xxx addresses. It could be a boon for parents, as well. Just block all the .xxx sites."

The existing .com sex domains have a value of tens (if not hundreds) of billions of dollars. Would the government just seize those assets witout compensation? Or would we like to pay them the billions for taking their property? There is no good way to do this.


4 posted on 03/29/2006 7:42:33 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Image hosted by Photobucket.com simple really... just give all the porn/smut domain names the new .xxx or .sex ext and then block any new companies from from using those existing names with a .com ext. anything new is fair game.
5 posted on 03/29/2006 7:46:02 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
Australia brought the issue to a head earlier this week with Communications Minister Helen Coonan saying she had "serious concerns" that the domain would legitimise illegal material.

This is all truly puzzling. Other than "vague" objections like this one, I have yet to hear a rational argument against the proposal anywhere.

What makes does doing nothing (maintain the status quo) preferable? why exactly?

Having the .XXX domain makes it possible to block or filter out all content, and any ISP sources who fail to police themselves would be blocked in their entirety, a rather powerful incentive to not allow content belonging in the .XXX domain.
Does any one have arguments pro and con?

6 posted on 03/29/2006 7:46:13 PM PST by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB; Terabitten

Who was supporting the "xxx" domain registry? Certainly, it's easier to block at the browser level...

There is certainly some way to put the nudie mags "behind the counter"?


7 posted on 03/29/2006 7:49:33 PM PST by IslandJeff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
The existing .com sex domains have a value of tens (if not hundreds) of billions of dollars. Would the government just seize those assets witout compensation? Or would we like to pay them the billions for taking their property? There is no good way to do this.

That argument makes no sense. .com sex domain have that value only if someone else can use them for the identical purpose the are used for now.
What makes their transfer to the .XXX domain any less valuable? Are you suggesting that the accidental access to these sites has intrinsic value?
I don't understand why any "compensation" is necessary. It's exactly like giving the tenants of a porn shop an identical facility elsewhere. Being a net presence, the there is no "physical" location!

8 posted on 03/29/2006 7:51:45 PM PST by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chode
"simple really... just give all the porn/smut domain names the new .xxx or .sex ext and then block any new companies from from using those existing names with a .com ext. anything new is fair game."


So what if a corporation doesn't want to give up its .com domain - for example playboy.com may be worth $50 million or more? And many of the domains are owned by companies around the world and they are also copyrighted? Sex.com was valued at $65 million.

Does the government just seize those assets without compensation or do taxpayers pay billions for the compensation? You would also have to prohibit sites like FreeRepublic.com from being able to set their own nudity standards? I don't Jim is gonna want the government oversight.

This is why the idea will not work even if it sounds attractive.
9 posted on 03/29/2006 7:52:31 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
I have yet to hear a rational argument against the proposal anywhere.

It would put porn on the Internet.

10 posted on 03/29/2006 7:56:06 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (Red meat, we were meant to eat it - Meat and Livestock Australia TV ad campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

Let's be thankful Ladies, there is no pornography on the Internet.


11 posted on 03/29/2006 7:57:48 PM PST by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
"What makes their transfer to the .XXX domain any less valuable? Are you suggesting that the accidental access to these sites has intrinsic value?
I don't understand why any "compensation" is necessary. It's exactly like giving the tenants of a porn shop an identical facility elsewhere. Being a net presence, the there is no "physical" location!"


Not being physical doesn't make the property less valuable - consider patents, video rights, copyrights.. all can have great value.

Also, it is unconstitutional to seize assets without compensation....

They aren't really tenets, they are more like owners. You can't take someone's downtown property and say "we will give you the same acreage out in the country."
12 posted on 03/29/2006 7:58:09 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

Wonder how many porn queens, and fluffers, were feverishly lobbying various government officials to make sure the proposal went limp.


13 posted on 03/29/2006 8:02:12 PM PST by Thumper1960 (The enemy within: Demoncrats and DSA.ORG Sedition is a Liberal "family value".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

"The existing .com sex domains have a value of tens (if not hundreds) of billions of dollars. Would the government just seize those assets witout compensation? Or would we like to pay them the billions for taking their property? There is no good way to do this."

Actually, there is a very good way to do this.

Give them the .xxx site in exchange for the .com site.

Close the .com site (allow only redirects from that site) for 5 years. Then reauction it.

Would that be a fair solution?

I still don't understand what the opposition to this was. The sites are there, and will continue to be. This would have made them easy to block, but the $#!%$@# bluenose politicos couldn't allow it because it'd have been admitting there is such a thing as sex on the internet, I guess.


14 posted on 03/29/2006 8:05:16 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (Freedom isn't free--no, there's a hefty f'in fee--and if you don't throw in your buck-o-5, who will?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile

"I still don't understand what the opposition to this was."

The opposition is that you are taking away private property and private property owners don't like that.

The proposal would also have involved censoring all remaining .com domains and lots of disagreement as to what constitutes porn. Think of how many message board have postings with some nudity.

There is no porn on Free Republic.com but do we really want the Government deciding what we are allow to post? Isn't that a job for the owner and the admins?


15 posted on 03/29/2006 8:08:23 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
They aren't really tenets, they are more like owners. You can't take someone's downtown property and say "we will give you the same acreage out in the country."

I'd think that a closer analogy involving physical property would be renaming the street that abuts someone's downtown property. That shop would have the same physical location, but rather than an address of 123 Main Street their mail would now be delivered to 123 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Same old storefront, same merchandise, just a different line on an order form.

16 posted on 03/29/2006 8:08:31 PM PST by Denver Ditdat (Melting solder since 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile

Agreed on all counts. The silver lining in all of this is that there isn't necessarily a corrupt heavy hand of the public sector dictating this. Seems to be more along the lines of a Homeowners Association.

The intellectual property aspect, however, doesn't provide for a redress of grievances.


17 posted on 03/29/2006 8:09:28 PM PST by IslandJeff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

if icann changes it, that's it. it's not the "government" doing it.

PlayBoy would just become PlayBoy.sex and NOBODY else could register PlayBoy.com... it would be retired and any intellectual property rights would transfer to PlayBoy.sex.

if they don't like it, icann can just trun off their number till they do. no theft involved.


18 posted on 03/29/2006 8:10:32 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Thumper1960

If they'd done their job properly, nothing would have gone limp!


19 posted on 03/29/2006 8:13:17 PM PST by Aussie Dasher (The Great Ronald Reagan & John Paul II - Heaven's Dream Team!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Chode

The legal precedent already exists for compensation for taking a .com domain. If the resulting .xxx domain has a lower market value then the lawsuits would be overwhleming and spread over 100+ countries.

Its just not practical in a capitalist world.


20 posted on 03/29/2006 8:13:51 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-156 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson