Internet body postpones decision on sex domain

[Neil D]

Mon Dec 5, 2005 7:55 PM GMT171

By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The group that oversees Internet domain sites has again postponed a decision on a controversial ".xxx" domain for sex sites, the head of the organisation said on Monday.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, had been expected at its quarterly meeting in Vancouver to approve or kill the domain, which would give pornographic Web sites their own online neighbourhood.

But ICANN decided to delay a vote because some participants had not had enough time to review application materials, ICANN president Paul Twomey said on a conference call with reporters.

"It was impossible to get sufficient time for consideration by the Government Advisory Committee members and therefore the board, the chairman decided to postpone the consideration," Twomey said.

"Within the first quarter of next year is my expectation when it will come back up," he said.

ICANN said in June that it would move ahead with the .xxx domain, but postponed work in August after the United States and several other governments asked it to take more time to solicit input.

Backers have said the domain would allow people to easily avoid sex sites if they don't want to visit them, but conservative groups like the Family Research Council say it would only lead to an increase in online porn and legitimise the industry.

The U.S. government's request put ICANN in an awkward spot.

Though the non-profit group's staffers and board members hail from across the globe, it operates under an agreement with the United States and frequently faces charges that it allows Washington to "control" the Internet, most recently at a United Nations technology summit in Tunisia last month.

A decision to deny .xxx could give critics further ammunition.

Twomey said that several board members had other reservations about .xxx -- how child-protection features outlined in the agreement would actually be implemented, and if they could be changed in the future, for example.

"There is controversy about this application. It is not a foregone conclusion with the board at all," he said

[:"blue"]So, whatcha think? Can we contain porn to just the XXX domain or will it continue to plague our mailboxes with solitications to visits sights of 'hot chicks'? The other questions that I see is what if you had pictures of naked women on say...blogs. Could that be concidered porn? Or does porn also involve money as in, you must relinquish your credit card number to visit a sight? At what point do you concidern pornography bad, or in bad taste or just plain photos [one? three dozen?] of women who pose naked or just bare thier chests? [/]

[Bravus]

Yeah, because we can already see how *not* having the .xxx domain has completely curbed porn on the net...

[Dr. Shane]

I wouldn't think it would hurt anything. It may help those of us that want to avoid such sites. As far as how porn is defined, I would think money transaction would have to be part of what constitutes it. But I suspect they already have a definition.

[cricket]

What does money have to do with pornography?

Naked women (ahem...or men!) on blogs: yes, pornographic.

Pornography is always bad. It is always in bad taste. People who willingly pose naked for people other than their spouses are acting not only in poor taste, but in sinful behavior. People who willingly view such images are also acting in sinful behavior.

Why must these questions be asked over and over again? Why isn't this plain to Christian men and women? Why does there seem to be a "fuzzy" line between what is morally right and wrong?

God created men and women for each others' pleasure--no argument there. He created them to be married and to find pleasure with ONE spouse--not many.

Why cheat yourself with pornography when the very best is waiting for you at home? God designed your spouse with just you in mind. Other women and men He designed for others.