| QUOTE |
Internet regulators have rejected plans to create a domain for pornography websites ending with the .xxx suffix. Advocates of the exclusive domain had argued that it would make it easier for web users to locate - or avoid - pornography online. Conservative opponents of the plan said it would legitimise pornography, while opponents in the porn industry warned it could lead to more state control. Internet regulator Icann's chief said the decision was not political. "The heart of the decision today was not driven by a political consideration," Paul Twomey told the Associated Press news agency. The idea for an .xxx domain was first floated in 2001. A final decision on approving the exclusive porn domain has been delayed several times - most recently in December. In August, the decision was postponed following a request from the US Department of Commerce which had "concerns" about the domain. Plans for the .xxx have been criticised by many people and organisations, among them former Icann board member Karl Auerbach and US conservative religious groups, including the Family Research Council. ICM Registry, the company that proposed and plans to run the .xxx, said the domain would have made it easier to find and filter pornographic material online. Critics said that because signing up for .xxx was voluntary, there was no guarantee pornographers would move material to the new domain, not least because many have established themselves on other well-known sites. Story from BBC NEWS: |
| QUOTE (rob @ May 11 2006, 05:38 PM) |
| Don't like the sound of that, it would mean either updating all my bookmarks or just leave them and wait to be redirected each time :unsure: |
| QUOTE |
| US challenged over .xxx decision The backer of a failed bid to create a net domain for porn is trying to get its application reconsidered. In early May ICM Registry's plans for a .xxx domain were rejected by the net's organising body Icann. Now ICM is suing two US government departments for access to documents it claims show how they lobbied for the new net address to be rejected. It has asked Icann to reconsider its application because it did not have all the facts about ICM's plans. Hard target ICM has filed Freedom of Information requests against the US Department of Commerce and Department of State to get uncensored copies of official documents that relate to the creation of the .xxx domain. In its Freedom of Information filing, ICM said it expected the documents to "shed light on what role the United States government played in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers' (Icann) consideration of ICM's proposal to create and operate a new .xxx domain". Members of the board voted against the ICM agreement based on inaccurate information about the written statements of various governments concerning .xxx ICM Registry letter ICM claims that the US government bowed to pressure from the religious right for the domain to be dropped. Icann voted on 10 May to reject ICM's plans following a year of delay over a final decision on the domain. If the .xxx idea had been approved, it would have sat alongside the more familiar .com and .org but would have been only used by websites offering explicit sexual material. Porn sites would not be forced to move their sites to a .xxx domain. Instead use of it would be voluntary. The plan to set .xxx was criticised by some because they feared that corralling porn sites on one domain would make it easier to filter out such things and aid censorship of the net. Others pointed out the difficulty of deciding what counted as pornography. ICM said the plan for the domain would make it easier for parents to let their children use the net without worrying about them stumbling across porn sites. It has asked Icann to rethink its decision to reject the domain plans. "Members of the board voted against the ICM agreement based on inaccurate information about the written statements of various governments concerning .xxx," said ICM in a letter to Icann. Handy domain This week also saw the start of the sunrise period for another new domain, .mobi, which is intended for sites that mobile phones can access. The first limited sunrise phase, which lasts a week, is for members of the world's various mobile phone industry groups to grab a .mobi domain for themselves. Almost 3,000 companies are expected to apply during this phase of the rollout. The main sunrise period for trademark owners begins on 12 June and runs to 21 August. The landrush phase, in which anyone can apply for a .mobi domain, will begin on 28 August. Unlike other registries, the organisation behind .mobi, MTLD, is imposing standards on all those operating mobile domains to ensure they can be accessed easily by as many handsets as possible. Neil Edwards, head of MTLD, said the hope was that by imposing standards on operators of .mobi domains it hoped to make sites easier to access and boost use of the net on mobile phones. Story from BBC NEWS: |
| QUOTE |
| The rights and wrongs of .xxx The decision by the the US-based non-profit body that runs the domain name system to reject proposals for .xxx could have wide-reaching repercussions for how the internet is run, writes internet law professor Michael Geist. In the 1980s, seven generic top-level domains, including .com, .net, and .org, were established. Those domains remain among the most popular on the internet, with millions of registrations worldwide. Since its inception in 1998, the introduction of new generic top-level domains has emerged as one of thorniest policy issues facing the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), with the governance body approving seven new domains, including .biz and .info, in 2000. Interest in the creation of yet additional domain name extensions remains high as the domain name registry business presents a lucrative opportunity to collect annual registration fees for potentially millions of new domain names. Moreover, domain name registrars support additional domains as they provide new products to market to the internet community. Icann's initial reluctance to establish dozens or hundreds of new top-level domains initially centered on fears that an influx of new domain name extensions might adversely impact the reliability of the internet. Net criticism Those technical concerns are rarely voiced today. Similarly, the intellectual property community opposed new domains on the grounds that they might encourage domain name speculation known as cyber-squatting. That issue has been largely addressed through "sponsored" domain extensions that restrict access to the new domains, as well as through advance registration systems that grant trademark holders the right to register the domain name equivalent of their trademarks before the general public. With millions of dollars at stake, the net community has relied on Icann to establish a transparent system for creating new domain name extensions. The resulting process has left many observers unhappy. They argue that it is too expensive as application costs alone are now estimated at $250,000. They say it is also too cumbersome with the creation of the domain name extension requiring months of negotiation after preliminary approval is granted and too subjective as decisions are fraught with policy choices. Sex bomb In March 2004, ICM Registry, a US company, joined forces with a Canadian-based organization called the International Foundation for Online Responsibility, to propose the creation of a new .xxx top-level domain. The proposal maintained that .xxx would "clearly and unequivocally convey to the internet user that the site contains adult material of a sexual nature". Fifteen months later, Icann announced that it had entered into commercial and technical negotiations to establish the .xxx domain. This decision appeared to be based on political considerations with near-obvious intervention from the US government The decision came as a surprise since there were many other worthy domain name proposals awaiting approval and this particular domain was sure to generate controversy. Indeed, the prospect of a .xxx domain name extension created an immediate firestorm in the US. According to US government documents released last week under a Freedom of Information Act request, officials quickly recognised the sensitivity associated with the new extension and considered whether it could influence the process. Those concerns grew as several groups actively opposed the new domain extension with letter writing campaigns that generated thousands of critical letters and e-mails. Faced with a brewing domestic political issue, the US government urged Icann to delay final approval to allow for an extensive global consultation. In the months that followed, several other countries voiced opposition to the new domain extension. The Icann board raised several concerns with the .xxx backers, who repeatedly adjusted their proposal in response. Despite the changes, a divided Icann board ultimately voted nine to five against the establishment of the .xxx domain. The decision predictably elicited criticism from several quarters. Many Icann watchers noted that the function of the organisation was to address technical internet issues in an independent manner. However, this decision appeared to be based on political considerations with near-obvious intervention from the US government. Long-term pain The European Union echoed those concerns. A spokesperson characterised the episode as a "clear case of political interference in Icann" and lamented that "it is a worrying development that the U.S. administration has interfered in this process". In caving to US pressure, Icann may have traded short-term gain for long-term pain. In the short-term, Icann has staved off immediate government pressure and has likely ensured continuing support from the US government. In fact, late last week the US government announced that it planned to renew one of its Icann agreements for an additional five years. Looking ahead, however, proponents of a multi-lateral internet governance framework will cite this case as a classic illustration of why the Icann approach must be altered to ensure transparency, independence, and to better reflect the needs of the global community. Story from BBC NEWS: |