Unlike some of my fellow Internet safety activists, I think that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers did the right thing by rejecting the proposed .XXX top level domain designation. See Story Despite years of advocacy on the part of its sponsors, I remain unconvinced that that the .XXX top level domain would have furthered the causes of child protection or free speech. It might have been effective had it been mandatory for all porn sites, but that would have brought up enormous free speech issues that many of us would not fathom. Because it would have been voluntary, there would continue to be porn sites with .com TLDs, possibly giving parents a false sense of security by believing that all porn was walled off. I don't agree with those who say it would have promoted porn nor do I fully agree with those who fear that such a voluntary process would have been a likely first step towards government regulation. I do, however, understand why some adult site operators and civil libertarians would worry about that, especially if the voluntary xxx didn't cut back significantly on the use of .com for porn site. Also, the .XXX issue begged the question of user-supplied content on the Web on social networking sites as well as the risks of cyberbullying, self-destructive behavior and inappropriate contact between children and adults. Having said that, I still think that all sites, including adult sites, should self-label by using the ICRA ratings that are available through the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI.ORG). Unlike registering for a .XXX domain, setting up an ICRA label is free. All websites that supported the .XXX proposal should now take the next step of registering if they haven't already done so. Disclosure: I am an unpaid member of the FOSI Advisory board. Finally, it's an opportunity for all of us who care about Internet safety to remind parents that parental involvement and education can go a long way towards keeping our kids safe on the Internet. -- Larry Co-director BlogSafety.com -- Edited by Larry at 03/30/2007 12:40 PM
|
jbcoops
Posts:
37
From:
Forest Grove, OR
Registered:
6/20/06
|
|
(5 of 5)
Apr 6, 2007 5:24 PM
|
|
Dear Larry and Anne,
You're both better versed in this subject than I am. However, if ICANN is *not* a governmental body (is it?), then really there are no free speech issues. Private corporations quash free speech all the time. Enforcement? Well, nothing's going to stop porn from existing on foreign servers unless or until the domain namers put forth a policy stating that there is *only* to be porn on certain domains.
I know that filters are improving, but having virtual red light districts seem to be a direction that the Net should move into, rather than ignore.
|
|
|
Larry
Posts:
136
From:
Silicon Valley, California
Registered:
6/19/06
|
|
(4 of 5)
Apr 5, 2007 3:44 PM
|
|
Well, to the extent there is a governing body, it's ICANN and it ruled against XXX. I think the concept of a walled off red-light district makes sense but there's a catch 22. if it's mandatory there are free speech issues and if it's voluntary than it won't stop porn on .com sites. Your idea of dealing with it at the registrar level is exactly what the ICANN proposal would have done (ICANN basically is the governing body for registrars) and they decided not to touch it. If there were a workable solution, I'd accept it but this doesn't seem workable to me.
The other thing is that filters are a lot better than they used to be and, for the time being, that's probably the best solution for parents who feel they need help blocking porn.
--
Larry
Co-director
BlogSafety.com
|
|
|
Anne
Posts:
507
Registered:
6/26/06
|
|
(3 of 5)
Apr 5, 2007 1:10 PM
|
Interesting point about needing a governing body, jbcoops. You mean an int'l body set up sort of like ITU? I've heard others propose that, but so far international agreement on Internet governance in any form has been awfully elusive and its most basic form, ICANN, administering domain names, has been really unwieldy and fractious. The debate about .xxx itself within ICANN has been going on for seven years (some reports said it was a fairly persuasive argument from the Canadian government - not churches, this time - that helped quash dot-xxx this time).
I figured it would be fine to have dot-xxx for a few reasons: I read the would-be registrar's white paper and found it really well thought out; there was to be a nonprofit arm that would fund online-safety education; and it would be another "tool in the online-safety toolbox," as common as that phrase is. (I too thought the legitimizing-porn argument didn't hold much water.) The problem was, no requirement that porn sites only "reside" in the dot-xxx domain and no governing body that could require them to do so. So filters would only block URLs with the .xxx TLD and all the .com ones in this country and in others, especially those to which corporate responsibility is meaningless, would get through (or be blocked) as always - no steps forward in that scenario. Porn would just be in yet another domain, along with .com, .net, and probably many other top-level domains, so there would be no additional benefit to children in the filtering area. That's why I felt no disappointment that ICANN nixed it. Does that make sense?
Anne
--
Anne Collier
BlogSafety co-director |
|
|
jbcoops
Posts:
37
From:
Forest Grove, OR
Registered:
6/20/06
|
|
(2 of 5)
Apr 5, 2007 11:15 AM
|
I disagree that this is a good thing, Larry. First, a little background. Several years ago I was demonstrating public bookmarks to a group of professors at http://www.mybookmarks.com/public/coops (my educational link site). One of the professors called me over and said "look at this." Well, it turns out that one of the sites I had was no longer a kid site, it was a *porn site*. Needless to say, I was more than slightly ticked off. I discovered that porn sites would buy up lapsed domains with large hit counts, and then use them. Long story short I ended up in conversation with Congressman Wu's office, and he co-authored legislation which banned porn sites from doing exactly that. At the time I also recommended the creation of .xxx and .sex domains, where porn sites could "safely" exist and make filtering at K-12 schools and libraries much easier. I discovered that Senator Leibowitz had actually recommended the use of .xxx earlier, but that it had been shot down by the Christian right as "legitimizing" porn. This of course is a ludicrous argument (and also self-serving, insofar as many filtering services are run by Christian right owners). That is another story. The argument about "free speech" is indeed a valid one. However, the solution lies not in governmental legislation, since many porn sites have international domains. No, the solution lies with "Network Solutions" and other domain registrars. A simple solution *does in fact exist*. All porn sites should have a .xxx or .sex domain. Any hits on their current sites should automatically redirect to the same address with a new domain. A phase in period of say, 5 years would give all porn sites plenty of time to reformat, etc. and no legislation is really needed at all. The truth is the Net needs its own governing body. No one will argue that kids should have access to porn. Everyone will agree that filters are only a patchwork solution and often filter legitimate sites. Dropping the .xxx domain idea does nothing to resolve the serious issue of children accessing adult sites. |
|
|
Larry
Posts:
136
From:
Silicon Valley, California
Registered:
6/19/06
|
|
(1 of 5)
Mar 30, 2007 12:39 PM
|
Unlike some of my fellow Internet safety activists, I think that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers did the right thing by rejecting the proposed .XXX top level domain designation. See Story Despite years of advocacy on the part of its sponsors, I remain unconvinced that that the .XXX top level domain would have furthered the causes of child protection or free speech. It might have been effective had it been mandatory for all porn sites, but that would have brought up enormous free speech issues that many of us would not fathom. Because it would have been voluntary, there would continue to be porn sites with .com TLDs, possibly giving parents a false sense of security by believing that all porn was walled off. I don't agree with those who say it would have promoted porn nor do I fully agree with those who fear that such a voluntary process would have been a likely first step towards government regulation. I do, however, understand why some adult site operators and civil libertarians would worry about that, especially if the voluntary xxx didn't cut back significantly on the use of .com for porn site. Also, the .XXX issue begged the question of user-supplied content on the Web on social networking sites as well as the risks of cyberbullying, self-destructive behavior and inappropriate contact between children and adults. Having said that, I still think that all sites, including adult sites, should self-label by using the ICRA ratings that are available through the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI.ORG). Unlike registering for a .XXX domain, setting up an ICRA label is free. All websites that supported the .XXX proposal should now take the next step of registering if they haven't already done so. Disclosure: I am an unpaid member of the FOSI Advisory board. Finally, it's an opportunity for all of us who care about Internet safety to remind parents that parental involvement and education can go a long way towards keeping our kids safe on the Internet. -- Larry Co-director BlogSafety.com -- Edited by Larry at 03/30/2007 12:40 PM |
|
|
|
|
