Was ICANN right to reject .xxx domain?

By Derek Sooman on May 13, 2006, 3:44 PM
Was ICANN right to reject the plans to have a .xxx domain on the Internet for porn? Several people think so, and not just the Christian Right in the US. But what a lot of people don't know is that many of the objections were down to the nature of the plan itself, not because it was feared the move would encourage people to look at porn more. There were objections right across the board, with the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Brazil and Australia making it clear they thought the plan unworkable. But why?

Mostly, this had to do with the notion that a .xxx domain for porn would be easier for parents to block access to, so that children could not see anything they should not on the Net. But that argument is flawed; porn sites would likely buy .xxx names, but would want to continue to operate under their original .com sites as well. This is, of course, because using a .xxx domain name was voluntary. And the sad fact is, there’s plenty of sick crap out there, and offering porn sites the ability to use a .xxx domain was not and is not going to change that. There were other things that put porn site runners off too - protection of intellectual property rights and customer privacy, accurate labelling and meta-tagging and so forth.

Should the .xxx domain have gone ahead? What do you think? Could the plan have worked given time?




User Comments: 4

Got something to say? Post a comment
mirob said:
It could have worked if it had teeth. If porn was sill alowed under other domains with no penalty there was no point for it anyway.
Rage_3k_Moiz said:
It could have worked if the government knew exactly which porn companies had .com domains. They could be paid a certain amount of money to shut down their .com domains and switch to .xxx
Spike said:
It should have been carried out. Even if it was a voluntary excercise, it would have been a step in the right direction.TLDs have always been intended to be roughly content specific - ever since an alternative to .com was available. I don't see why .XXX should have been considered any differently. In fact, it shouldn't have. ICANN is supposed to be an independant organisation, but clearly, the fact that every article on the subject states that "the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Brazil and Australia" objected to it, not to mention the whole US side of the story, it's simply not working like that.ICANN is quite clearly being influenced by world governments.
nathanskywalker said:
This could have been a good idea. However, it would have required a rather "astronomical" level of...how do i say...***** people working togethor.
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.