ICANN Votes Against .XXX Extension

[Harry]

Here is the full articale I found : http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130292/article.html

What do you guys think of the decision?

I personally think all adult material SHOULD be using XXX extentions. This way we can clear more adult rated material away from people, especially the ones who don't want to view it.

 

[Artashes]

I personally think all adult material SHOULD be using XXX extentions.

I don't think we can really force anyone who is running an adult site or planning on running it to use the .xxx extension. You still are going to have people using .com and other extensions. However, I think that the decision would have been a positive thing since it will simplify functions of parental programs that prohibit children to visit certain sites. Blocking this extension, for example, would be major help in identifying and preventing exposure to adult material, and potentially protecting your PC from adware, viruses and other malware.

Best,

 

[bandboy]

I fully agree with all your comments but if we assume that all adult traffic goes or spreads through .xxx extensions, would that not be more cybersafe? Also, it will in a way demarcate boundaries for adult industry which most of all prospers in shadows as far as official departments of diff. countries are concerned. Remember, pronography is not legal in most countries.

 

[Blue]

The one problem with the .xxx extention is who polices it?
Who makes sure websites that are "adult" use only that extention and by who's standard do we determine what is an adult site and what is not?

Like you say, pornography is not legal in many countries, but so is certain are not accepted in certain countries. Who has final say in what is or is not pornography?

 

[Harry]

Well I suppose NOT all people will move to .xxx extentions. But! it would be a start for a move. I think what was decided is that it would keep "most" adult rated material away or rather in a general organization. Just how we have biz for businesses, or tv for tv related etc... I think people want to organize and narrow down different types of domains and sites/content.

 

[ldcdc]

At some point there must be a limit. We can't make all word/expressions/acronyms a domain extension. I don't think we're at the point where there are too many of them, so this extension could have just as well existed, but we shouldn't get to that point anyway, so...

 

[ANMMark]

I don't think we can really force anyone who is running an adult site or planning on running it to use the .xxx extension.

not to disagree with you on this point Art, but I strongly believe that it could have been forced. Hosting companies have the control here though. Simply put, a host can terminate an adult site if the site does not use the xxx extension. It really would rely on the host's involvement in enforcing it though. Of course I can imagine one of the thousands of children who run hosting "businesses" sitting back and going to school saying "Look look, I host a porn site!!!" and be so consumed by this fact, they could care less if it's a .com .net .xxx, or .whocares

I do agree however, that this extension would have been a step in the right direction, to assist in parental blocking.

 

[bandboy]

Hosting companies have the control here though. Simply put, a host can terminate an adult site if the site does not use the xxx extension. It really would rely on the host's involvement in enforcing it though.

Are you willing to risk your business for ICANN?
Are you willing to terminate your member's acc. just because he did not adhere to ICANN's rule if so existed?

Come on, you are host and not a registrar. ICANN can not force hosts to take actions. There is no legal binding and ICANN doesn't have power to get one as well.

So, expecting hosts to become a butcher is rather uncalled for, especially when hosts are not under control or purview of ICANN in any manner. Hosts are like any other user to ICANN and hosts are NOT going to risk their business to please ICANN if any such ruling is passed. Atleast not me....till they are on a server where adult content is allowed and they comply to USC18 and other policies and have a warning on main page before people enter their site....

 

[Blue]

I see no reason why hosts should not be involved if they were to go to a .xxx extension.
As a host you are responsible for the content on the server. If the law were changed to make all adult sites .xxx then if would in fact be the responsibility of the host to enforce it.

 

[ANMMark]

bandboy, you seem to have a skewed reality here.

A legit business protects themselves by following rules, and policies outlined by entities that govern their business. Hosting companies are very much governed by ICANN merely because hosting businesses rely on ICANN policy.

I'm not exactly sure where this whole ideal that ICANN is the devil came from, because I assure you that if you needed them to enforce one of their policies against someone who infringed upon your rights as a business or domain holder, then you would absolutely expect ICANN to step in.

It kind of reminds me of police offices, who are largely direspected, and disliked, until they are needed by the person who dislikes them, and disrespects them.

One cannot preech about being moral, then abandon morality when it benefits them. If one can do this, then they were never moral in the first place.

 

[ldcdc]

If the law were changed to make all adult sites .xxx then if would in fact be the responsibility of the host to enforce it.

ICANN does not pass laws though, and certainly doesn't pass Romanian laws for example. It's not a host's job to actively police content, look through all customer files etc.

Besides, this would be a domain registering issue, not a hosting issue. It should be ICANN's and the registrars' job to allow only adult companies to register .xxx names, and enforce such usage. It is not the host who should suspend the hosting account (after all the site's content in itself may very well be legal), it is the registrar who should take away the control over the infringing domain. That would also make it impossible for the abuser to just change hosts.

That being said, generally the host reserves the right to suspend or terminate accounts if it so sees fit, regardless of the reason, so infringing such a rule (which would quickly become part of netiquette) could translate in a suspension risk for a hosting customer.

Just my opinion.

 

[Blue]

It is not the host's job to actively police content, but it is the hosts job to ensure that content on the servers are within the law of the land.

ICANN does not make the law and that is not the issue.
We are talking about this becoming US or North American law.
As such it would apply to all content on US or North American servers. The host cannot proactively monitor all sites but he/she is completely responsible for any complaints about content on the servers.

 

[ldcdc]

We are talking about this becoming US or North American law.

It wasn't specified, and the internet is not restricted to that area. Even then, one could just change hosts to a host outside that jurisdiction. That measure/law doesn't actually solve anything if applied to North America alone. The international nature of the Internet has always been a blessing and a nuisance at the same time.

The host cannot proactively monitor all sites but he/she is completely responsible for any complaints about content on the servers.

This is not a content issue though. The legality of the content was not put into question, and it's a different matter anyway.

I just don't see the point of (forcibly) involving hosts in the matter, since this is (or rather would be) a domain registering issue.

 

[ANMMark]

It is not the host's job to actively police content, but it is the hosts job to ensure that content on the servers are within the law of the land.

One is kind of impossible without the other.

It's not a host's job to actively police content, look through all customer files etc.

As Blue stated, hosting companies are completely responsible for the content they allow on their servers. Ultimately this comes down to protecting your own interests as a hosting provider by making sure your customers are following the rules. This is no different than policing your customer's sites for illegal content such as child porn, illegal warez, etc.

 

[ANMMark]

This is not a content issue though. The legality of the content was not put into question, and it's a different matter anyway.

It is a content issue, as well as a domain issue. The topic is regarding the .xxx extension being assigned to adult content. The topic then arose on how could one make sure that adult content uses the .xxx extension and not just another .com

I strongly believe that it should be the registrar's repsonsibility initially, no doubt, but ultimately a host needs to keep tabs on what is on their server as well, and the enforcement of the rule, really relies on both entities.

 

[bandboy]

ICANN doesn't make international laws. If .xxx policy were to be introduced, unless enforced by law, it does not involve host directly. ICANN have a policy in place whereby all adult content shifts to .xxx but unless, it is a law in country where servers are, hosts can not be forced to shut down sites till they comply with law of the land and host's TOS.

Domains and Hosting are two diff. things though related but not interfering in each other's work. No one has undermined ICANN. ICANN makes policies but not laws. There are servers outside US or North America as well, so its a broad concept and on net, you can't have a rule for one set of populaton while other set is let scott free.

 

[Blue]

Of course you can.
ICANN can set the policy and individual countries can make it law.
Even if some countries choose not to make it law, ICANN still has the ability to suspend the domain.

 

[Jayke]

At first I was mad about when I heard this, cause I thought operating systems would soon have an option to block the tld: .xxx but how can this be inforced?

Then I begun to think about the freedom of Speech and the freedom of Press, is the .xxx violating that? If it was approved it shouldn't be required then.

 

[ANMMark]

Then I begun to think about the freedom of Speech and the freedom of Press, is the .xxx violating that? If it was approved it shouldn't be required then.

This is not covered by the first amendment of the constitution.

1. Pornography is neither press nor speech
2. ICANN is a private entity, as is each and every registrar and host. As such, each entity determines what is acceptable under their own policy for their own users.

 

[Jayke]

This is not covered by the first amendment of the constitution.

1. Pornography is neither press nor speech
2. ICANN is a private entity, as is each and every registrar and host. As such, each entity determines what is acceptable under their own policy for their own users.

Good point. Though in the US a lot claim pornography artistic expression a form of speech, and yet, the United States ruled it legal. There are already laws about this, but it makes me think why? Does ICANN even have the manpower to enforce it? I believe roughly 1% of websites are adult sites, so how hard would it to be to force millions of websites to change their TLD? And even pay for it. I bet it would be fought.

I do prefer the .xxx tld for them, and would love to see operating systems develop software to block the TLD, of course, I'd like that for my kids, and even myself so I don't click on the wrong link in public. So yeah.

Doesn't ICANN control each registar?